Dear Followers,
Thank you for reading these heretofore-weekly posts on the Revised Common Lectionary texts that I/we have been doing for the last six months or so. I seem to have hit a wall of sorts - maybe it's Lent, maybe it's work demanding more of my energy - whatever the case, something has to give and I have decided to take a break from this project. I may continue to post when a text strikes me in a particular way, but I need a hiatus from posting every week. Thanks for reading!
God's peace -
Andy(&Susan)
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Lent 1 – March 13, 2011
You can view this week’s Revised Common Lectionary texts here: http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/texts.php?id=24 (right-click the link to open a separate tab or window).
The first Sunday in the seven-or-so-week season of Lent (forty days, not counting Sundays) always gives us the story of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness from one of the gospels. For a long time I have been fascinated by these stories because they appear in Matthew, Mark and Luke, but Mark’s version is very different from the other two – just two very spare verses compared to eleven in Matthew, thirteen in Luke. One detail all three agree on is that Jesus was in the wilderness – or more accurately, the desert – for forty days. Matthew and Luke say he fasted for that time and then was tempted; Mark just says he was in the desert being tempted for that long. Either way, not much difference, and it’s appropriate that this story of Jesus facing his humanity and vulnerability head-on opens our Lenten season of fasting and preparation.
Matthew begins his narrative by telling us that the Spirit led Jesus into the desert in the first place, “to be tempted by the devil.” I imagine this makes us kind of uncomfortable, as we’d much rather think of temptation as something that just happens instead of something the Holy Spirit leads us to! I don’t have a good answer for that, except to point out that this story is nestled right between Jesus’ baptism and the start of his public ministry – so it’s about his identity as God’s son being confirmed. In 3:16, the Spirit descended on his to reveal him as God’s son; now the Spirit is taking him out for a test drive, so to speak, to see what kind of stuff he’s made of. Once in the desert, Jesus fasts for forty days – recalling Israel’s forty years in the wilderness, which also involved going without food (more on that below).
When Jesus has been fasting those forty days, the “tempter” comes and challenges him to turn stones into bread, “if you are the Son of God” – to which Jesus replies with a quote from Deuteronomy. This is the basic pattern of the temptations: (Devil) “If you are the Son of God, do x; (Jesus) “No, because it’s written that y.” All of Jesus’ Scripture quotations here are from Deuteronomy, which to me is a clue to the point of this whole story. For instance, Jesus responds to the stones-into-bread challenge by quoting a bit from Deut. 8:3. If we look at what comes just before that bit in Deut., Moses tells God’s people, “Remember the long way that the Lord your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, in order to humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commandments. He humbled you by letting you hunger, then by feeding you with manna, with which neither you nor your ancestors were acquainted, in order to make you understand that one does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.” (emphasis added) It seems to me that Jesus’ temptation is about seeing “what is in his heart” and whether he’s going to be a faithful servant of God on Israel
The second temptation in Matthew’s version has the devil testing Jesus to see whether he’ll test God – challenging him to throw himself off the Temple
Finally, the devil offers Jesus “all the kingdoms of the world” if Jesus will offer the devil his worship. It’s interesting that Luke’s version of the story reverses the second and third temptations. Why? Well, it makes sense in terms of following the narrative thrust of the gospel to end the sequence in Jerusalem, as Luke does; on the other hand, in Matthew “falling down and worshipping” is something that has particular significance and happens over and over (see 2:11; 14:33; 28:9), so it perhaps makes sense that Matthew ends with this one. Anyway, here Jesus quotes from Deut. 6:13, and again the context is as follows: “When the Lord your God has brought you into the land that he swore to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you—a land with fine, large cities that you did not build, houses filled with all sorts of goods that you did not fill, hewn cisterns that you did not hew, vineyards and olive groves that you did not plant—and when you have eaten your fill, take care that you do not forget the Lord, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. The Lord your God you shall fear; him you shall serve, and by his name alone you shall swear.” In other words, the earth and all it has to offer don’t come from anybody but God, so God is the one we worship.
Just to briefly tie this in with the other readings, Paul says in Romans 5:19 that Jesus’ obedience to God (which is shown in the Gospel lesson) has the effect of reversing Adam’s disobedience (which we see played out in the OT lesson).
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Transfiguration – March 6, 2011
You can view this week’s Revised Common Lectionary texts here: http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/texts.php?id=22 (right-click the link to open a separate tab or window).
The last Sunday before Lent – and the last of the season of Epiphany - is always Transfiguration Sunday, owing to the general location and function of this story in the gospels. That is, it’s a big, powerful revelation of Jesus’ identity before the events leading to his passion and death. As the Epiphany season commences with a voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism identifying him as “my beloved son,” so it closes with that same voice again identifying Jesus and telling his inner circle of disciples, “Listen to him!”
I’ve always thought the Transfiguration story was one of the strangest episodes in the gospels – to me it’s always seemed to just come out of nowhere, this big interruption in the flow of the narrative. Truth is, though – and maybe it has something to do with its strangeness – it’s one of the best attested stories in the gospels. It appears in Matthew, Mark (9:2-10), and Luke (9:28-36), in each following Jesus’ prediction of his coming death. It’s referred to in 2 Peter, as we see in the week’s Epistle reading. Even John includes a story with some odd similarities in 12:28-30: Jesus is speaking about his death and there’s a voice from heaven, which the crowd thinks is just thunder (cf. the “cloud” in the other gospel accounts??).
As I read the story now, the occurrence of the Transfiguration in Matthew’s narrative makes a little more sense to me. Since Jesus’ baptism, he’s been calling and teaching and working with his disciples, they’ve seen him heal and feed and calm storms, and the time comes in ch. 16 for a serious conversation about who he is – what you might call the first semester final exam, which must be passed before they can go on to Discipleship 102. “Who do you say that I am?” Jesus asks, and Peter has the answer: “You are the Messiah, the son of the living God.” Jesus then hands Peter his A+, commending him at some length in a bit (vs. 17-20) that the other gospels don’t include. Then in 16:21, they jump right into the second semester material: “From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem
And that’s the point at which the Transfiguration occurs. It’s as if, here at the beginning of the second semester the disciples – maybe Peter especially – need a refresher on who Jesus is. What’s interesting to me about this story is (1) the way it ties together past and future, and (2) the way it’s both similar to and different from Jesus’ baptism.
On the first point, obviously the vision of Jesus chatting with Moses the lawgiver and Elijah the great prophet (and traditionally the forerunner of the Messiah) ties Jesus to Israel Mount Sinai , the “cloud” of God’s glory covers it, and God speaks to Moses. Here, we see Jesus taking just his “inner circle” of disciples up a “high mountain,” where a “bright cloud overshadow[s] them” and God speaks. (Note: here God speaks not to Jesus but to the disciples.) Matthew also has the added bit (v. 2) about Jesus’ face “shining like the sun,” which recalls Moses when he came down from the mountain (see Ex. 34:29). This bit about Jesus shining like the sun also clues us in that this is a vision of Jesus’ future as well: earlier in his story (13:43) Jesus said that “the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of the Father. Let anyone with ears listen!”
On the second point, this story is certainly similar to Jesus’ baptism in its focus on Jesus’ identity; in its location here at the beginning of Act II (as the baptism started Act I); and in the voice from heaven identifying Jesus as “my son, the beloved; with him I am well pleased.” The significant difference here is the command to “Listen to him!” The idea being, I think, “Listen to what he’s saying about suffering and death and the cross and losing your life, or you’ll miss the point entirely.” There’s also, it seems to me, an urgency to the “listen to him!” like “don’t lose focus now because things are only going to get harder from here on out.”
Which brings us back full circle to the place of Transfiguration Sunday in the Christian year. We’re reminded that the season of Lent that we’re about to enter is really important, as it leads up to the events and the mysteries that are at the very heart of our faith. As if God is saying to us too, “Pay attention!”
Works Consulted:
Dennis Duling’s notes to the Matthew text in the HarperCollins Study Bible
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Epiphany 8 – February 27, 2011
You can view this week’s Revised Common Lectionary texts here: http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/texts.php?id=20 (right-click the link to open a separate tab or window).
Isaiah 49:8-16a
This week’s OT text is from the part of Isaiah (chapters 40-55) referred to as “Second Isaiah,” which dates from the period of the Babylonian Exile (J.J.M. Roberts says “probably” between 545 and 539 BC, just before God’s people were allowed to return to their land). These chapters carry an overall tone of comfort, of promise that they will be going home. The thing that most strikes me about this reading is the emphasis on God’s timing – that God will act on behalf of God’s people when the time is right, and in the meantime God’s people should not lose faith and hope.
It starts out referring to a “time of favor” and a “day of salvation” when God will help his people, and it goes on to describe how God will care for the people when that time comes and they journey back home. God will feed them and quench their thirst (vs. 9-10), and God will be bringing home exiles from all over (v. 12). Vs. 14-16 address the question whether God has forgotten Zion (Jerusalem Zion
I’m betting this concept of God acting according to God’s timing is difficult for most of us, who live with the general expectation of being able to get anything-anywhere-anytime. Yet, isn’t it true that the really big and amazing things – like birth, healing, reconciliation - happen in their own time and require faith and patience?
Matthew 6:24-34
This week’s Gospel reading is quite appropriate in the context of Matthew’s gospel: just a little earlier in the story, at least four of the disciples whom Jesus is addressing here quit their jobs in order to hit the road with him (see 4:18-22). And just a couple of chapters after the Sermon on the Mount we see Matthew himself leave his tax booth in the same way (9:9). So it makes sense that his followers might be worried about how they’re going to make ends meet; and it makes sense that this passage would speak to folks who may have lost their jobs, or who live on the edge economically. What’s interesting to me is that even those of us who have plenty to live on can identify with this kind of anxiety. It makes me think Jesus might really be onto something here.
I think we tend to have kind of a duel reaction to this text. On the one hand, we think, “You’re right, Jesus – I shouldn’t worry, everything will be o.k.” On the other hand, we kind of bristle: “But don’t we need jobs?! And is it really a bad idea not to set some extra aside for the worries that tomorrow brings?”
But what is Jesus saying here? He’s not saying, “Don’t work” or “Don’t earn a living,” but rather “Don’t worry.” (Note: in vs. 25-34, the word “worry” appears no less than six times.) I don’t know about you, but it’s the worrying about life more than life itself that always does me in. No sooner have I completed a task at work than I’m worrying about how it’s going to play out. And when things are going well, I can still worry because something might change, in fact everything could unravel! Worrying is my way of trying to control the future, or change the past. “Maybe I should have done x instead of y. What if z happens – what will I do then?” And the real problem with worrying is that it’s completely atheistic: it leaves no room for God.
Which is why Jesus points out the birds and the lilies: because God takes care of them. And doesn’t it stand to reason that God will also take care of us? “Your heavenly Father knows you need all these things,” he says. Jesus is calling us to replace all our worrying with a little faith in God’s providence; and if we need to busy ourselves with something, “strive first for the kingdom of God
Works Consulted:
J.J.M. Roberts’ notes to the Isaiah text in the HarperCollins Study Bible
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Epiphany 7 (Part 2) – February 20, 2011
Matthew 5:38-48
This week’s Gospel reading gives us the rest of chapter 5 in the Sermon on the Mount. E.P. Sanders cautions us to keep in mind the kind of criticism of the Law that is being voiced here. It’s not, “The Law says x, but the Law is wrong; do y instead.” Rather, Jesus’ approach is, “The Law allows you this much leeway, but I say you should hold yourselves to a stricter standard.” For example, in v. 38 Jesus refers to Torah provisions about the proper damages for personal injury (see, e.g., Ex. 21, Lev. 24). In legal speak we would say that the Law prescribed compensatory damages (an eye for an eye) but not punitive damages. Jesus suggests foregoing the entire lawsuit, so to speak. What I hear him saying here is, Try a different approach. What would it be like if, when someone hit you on one cheek, instead of doing what was expected (hitting them back, suing them for battery) you offered them the other as well? He gives other examples of this kind of behavior, and I’d offer a couple of notes here. “Coat” and “cloak” in v. 40 aren’t very accurate – the first garment was a shirt worn next to the skin, and the second was the outer robe. It makes for a pretty arresting (and humorous) picture: somebody threatens to take the shirt off your back, and you end up standing there naked in front of them. Also, in v. 41 the verb is “if anyone ‘presses you into service’ one mile” – kind of a military image.
What’s Jesus getting at? I think vs. 43ff., where he tells us to love our enemies, bring the preceding verses into focus so that the idea is, Whenever somebody approaches you as an adversary, don’t accept their definition of the relationship; instead, respond as a friend and redefine the relationship. He goes on to say (v. 45) that loving our enemies and praying for our persecutors is a way of being children of God; i.e., this is what God is like. And the goal, after all, is to act the way God acts, to reflect God’s nature. A better translation of v. 48 is, “Be complete, therefore, as your heavenly Father is complete.” The adjective has the same root as telos, meaning “end” or “goal.”
Works Consulted:
E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus
Friday, February 18, 2011
Epiphany 7 (Part 1) – February 20, 2011
I’ve got out-of town depositions today, so I’m posting in two parts this week. By the way, you can view this week’s Revised Common Lectionary texts at http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/texts.php?id=19 (right-click the link to open a separate tab or window).
Leviticus 19:1-2, 9-18
The OT book of Leviticus gets a bad rap; and true enough, there’s some harsh and some puzzling stuff in there. But I remember the first time I read it, being struck by how very practical an approach to religion it describes. We can tend to spiritualize and ethereal-ize our faith to the extent that it loses all grounding in practice. Well, the Levitical approach will bring you back to earth quick.
If there’s a theme to Leviticus, I think it’s this: God is holy, and God wants his people to be holy because we belong to God; the way we “be holy” is by doing certain things that show we belong to God. This week’s OT reading communicates that theme clearly. It starts with God’s admonition to the people (v. 2) to “be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.” It then follows with examples of practicing holiness. For example, in verses 9-10, we are told that providing for the poor and foreigners is to be part and parcel of how we make a living: instead of squeezing out all the profit we can, we’re to sacrifice some of our profit margin for those in need. Likewise verse 13, says we’re to practice concern for laborers. I take it a boss might want to “keep for yourself the wages of a laborer until morning” to make sure the worker shows back up for work the next day; i.e., “Good day’s work - I’ll pay you when you get here for work tomorrow.” Instead, Leviticus says laborers are to be treated with dignity and respect. Verses 17-18 talk about loving our neighbors, and it embarrasses me to no end when I think about how “love your neighbor as yourself” gets pop-psychologized - e.g. “you have to first love yourself in order to love others.” It seems to me the point is, “Don’t harbor grudges against each other; instead, resolve your conflicts, because you are a community and you need each other.”
One final observation: each of the admonitions here concludes with the declaration, “I am the Lord your God.” The idea – these practices flow from the nature of God. Again, God is holy and these practices are the way that we as God’s people reflect that holiness.
1 Corinthians 3:10-11, 16-23
Sometimes Paul’s logic gets the better of him and he goes off on these tangents, spinning out some metaphor or theological concept until it’s really not clear what he’s saying. I see some of that going on in this text. Verses 12-15 are left out partly because they’re one of these tangents; and then there’s another sort of tangent at the end of the reading. The one point I will zero in on is in vs. 16-17, where Paul tells the Corinthian Christians that they are God’s temple and God’s Spirit dwells in them. In the NRSV there’s a footnote calling attention to the fact that the “you” there is plural: Paul is not saying that our individual human bodies are God’s temples (i.e., this is not some middle school sex ed fodder), but rather that the congregation is altogether God’s house, where God’s Spirit lives. As we’ve been following these readings the last few weeks and have seen (1) that Paul’s concern is conflict in the church and (2) that Paul has employed these different metaphors – garden, building – to illustrate the life of the congregation, this is pretty clear to us. So, Paul’s point: nasty conflict in the church tears down God’s own building project!
Stay tuned for reflections on the Gospel text!
Friday, February 11, 2011
Epiphany 6 – February 13, 2011
You can view this week’s Revised Common Lectionary texts here: http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/texts.php?id=18 (if you right-click the link you can pull them up in a separate tab or window).
Deuteronomy 30:15-20
“Deuteronomy” literally means “Second Law,” but in the Jewish tradition the book is called by the Hebrew phrase meaning “These are the words” – a phrase that begins the book and is repeated at points throughout (see 29:1). Deuteronomy is presented as a recapitulation of the Law by Moses at the point when God’s people are about to enter the promised land. Today’s OT reading is Moses’ summation after he has finished speaking to the people. I think it’s helpful to back up just a bit and start with verses 11-14. Moses tells the people that, after all, God has laid it all out for them, not hiding the ball but instead making very plain what God expects. So “the word is very near to you…in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe.” (v. 14) Now, he says, it’s in their hands: they can choose to follow the Law and they will enjoy a good, long life in the promised land; or they can ignore the Law and consequently “you shall not live long in the land…” (v. 18). Moses’ last appeal: “Choose life so that you and your descendants may live...” (v. 19).
This reading reflects a theological perspective (referred to, conveniently, as “deuteronomic theology”) that took hold after the Exile, as God’s people struggled with how and why the Exile happened. They settled on the interpretation that the Exile was the consequence of their disobedience and heedlessness of God’s law. So here’s Moses telling the people at the outset, on the edge of the promised land, that if they follow God’s law they will be blessed, and if they don’t they will be cursed. On a certain level this point of view makes some sense – it’s kind of an extension of, “If you play with fire you’ll likely get burned.” On the other hand, it can be taken too far: as the story of Job points out in another part of the OT, just because someone is suffering (or prospering) doesn’t mean it’s the result of disobedience (or faithfulness).
It’s helpful to note that, even in Deuteronomy, the “curses” aren’t the end of the story. At the beginning of chapter 30, Moses tells the people how to repair the broken relationship with God: “Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will bring you back.”
1 Corinthians 3:1-9
In this week’s Epistle reading, Paul circles back around to the point that prompted his reflections on the power of weakness and the wisdom of foolishness. He says, the reason he’s stuck to the basics with these folks – the cross, say – is that loftier subjects such as spiritual gifts are only appropriate for mature, spiritual people – and they are neither. “I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ.” (v. 1) (He doesn’t spare their feelings, does he?) And he says, as long as they’re quarreling, trying to one-up and outdo each other, they won’t ever be ready for spiritual things. Paul’s advice: look beyond the differences between the human authorities – “Paul”, “Apollos”, etc. – that are dividing them. Paul and Apollos, after all, are just laborers in the field who each played a small role their faith – Paul planting the seeds, Apollos watering – but it’s God who has really been growing their faith the whole time.
The above is a pretty deft rhetorical move on Paul’s part, as it diminishes what divides the Corinthians (differences between Paul and Apollos) and brings to the fore what unites them (God). But as anyone who has tried to get people with differing theological views to put them aside and “focus on God” knows, it’s really hard. And I think the reason it’s hard is that the ways we understand “God” may also differ in some profound ways. Maybe the trick is to remember that God is ultimately mysterious and beyond our intellectual grasp, as is our unity in God.
Matthew 5:21-37
More from the Sermon on the Mount in this week’s Gospel text: these “you have heard it said…but I say” pieces are often referred to as the “antitheses.” This reading covers the antitheses dealing with murder/anger, adultery/lust, divorce, and oaths. It’s important to remember that Jesus has set these up by saying he hasn’t come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (vs. 17-20). So Jesus isn’t saying here “Law bad, my words good”; rather, if anything he’s telling his followers to take the law farther, to follow the requirements of the law to their logical conclusions. Rather than just “not murdering,” he says, why don’t we also avoid anger and work on reconciling with each other before things get out of hand (saves legal expenses too! (vs. 25-26)). Rather than “not committing adultery,” how about avoiding the lust that leads to adultery? Instead of “at least give a certificate of divorce,” try staying married; instead of “not swearing falsely,” avoid the whole problem by just leaving it at “yes” and “no” and then doing what we say we’re going to do. As E.P. Sanders says, this section isn’t “opposition” to the law but, if anything, a heightening and intensifying of the law. More to come next week, when we get the rest of chapter 5.
Works Consulted:
Rhonda Burnette-Bletsch, Studying the Old Testament: A Companion
E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus
Friday, February 4, 2011
Epiphany 5 – February 6, 2011
You can view this week’s Revised Common Lectionary texts here: http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/texts.php?id=17 (if you right-click the link you can pull them up in a separate tab or window).
Isaiah 58:1-9a
The OT reading continues the theme from last week’s Micah text, of what constitutes true religion. This reading is from so-called “Third Isaiah,” the section of the book covering chapters 56-66, which appears to come from the period after the people’s return from exile in Babylon Jerusalem Israel
This week’s reading finds this prophet giving the people a little insight into the reasons for their disappointment. The problem is not that they aren’t asking for God’s help – the problem is, that’s all they’re doing. “Day after day they seek me…they ask of me righteous judgments.” (v. 2) And they do so much fasting that God is over it: “Why do we fast but you do not see, why humble ourselves but you do not notice?” (v. 3) The reason God is over their fasting is that all these religious observances are just self-serving; they spend so much time in the Temple
I think what the prophet’s getting at is that the returned exiles are focusing too much on renewing the Temple worship and not enough on practicing God’s justice; if they’d rebalance, they might see some of that old glory come back (vs. 8-9).
Matthew 5:13-20
I notice that this week’s Gospel text segues nicely from last week’s. At the end of the Beatitudes (vs. 11-12) Jesus addresses the disciples directly: “Blessed are you…” Then v. 13 picks up with him saying, “You are the salt of the earth… You are the light of the world…” The “you” here is plural: again, the Sermon on the Mount is aimed at forming Jesus’ disciples into a community characterized by certain practices. He starts, 5:1-12, by reorienting how they see the world. He then moves to describing their role in the world, and there’s a real edge, an urgency, to what he says. “You are the salt of the earth” (v. 13): you’re to have a distinctive flavor about you to spice things up. He asks a rhetorical question: if salt loses its flavor, how can you make it salty again? The obvious answer is, you can’t! You might as well just throw it away! Point not to be missed by the disciples: So don’t lose your flavor. “You are the light of the world” (v. 14): you’re to be visible to others and give them light. Again, some rhetoric: nobody lights a lamp and then hides it – that would just be stupid! You put a lamp up on a stand where it can light the place up. This one comes with an explanatory note: “In the same way, let your light shine…” But there’s also an unspoken corollary: So for God’s sake don’t put your light under a basket or you won’t do anybody any good. I think this is hard for us – knowing exactly what it means to be “salt” and “light” in the world. At what point does salty = obnoxious? At the same time, when does “subtle” or “subversive” become just an excuse for bland and hidden? I think the answer comes in the rest of the sermon, where Jesus describes the particular practices that are to characterize his community. I think he’s saying that, if we’re behaving in these ways, if we’re living as if the meek are the ones who will inherit the earth, then we’re going to have a distinctive flavor in the world.
In verses 17-20 Jesus starts to explain what it looks like for his community to be “salt” and “light” in the world. He begins, by way of explanation, telling them he hasn’t come to abolish the Law - a comment that may reflect accusations leveled at the Christians of Matthew’s day by the Jewish community at large. Instead, he has come to “fulfill the Law,” and the “righteousness” of his followers – i.e. their practice – must “exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.” (See post for 01/09/11 for discussion of “righteousness” in Matthew.) Now, when I first read this I thought what Jesus meant by “exceeding the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees” was that his disciples are to do the same stuff the scribes and Pharisees are doing, only better. But a look at what comes next in the sermon tells us differently: starting in v. 21 is a series of sayings of the form “You have heard it said… but I say...” that runs through the rest of chapter 5. In these sayings Jesus reinterprets the Law, taking its requirements further so that, for example, not just murder but anger is wrong, not just adultery but lust, etc. He says (v. 46), if you only love those who love you, what’s distinctive about that? (Hear: Bland!!) Instead, try loving your enemies (Salty!). In other words, what I think he means that he’s come to “fulfill the Law” is that he’s reinterpreting and taking it further, and by following his reinterpreted Law our righteousness will exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. Either way, it’s still a tall order.
Works Consulted:
Rhonda Burnette-Bletsch, Studying the Old Testament: A Companion
Fred Craddock’s commentary on the Gospel text in Preaching Through the Christian Year: Year A
Friday, January 28, 2011
Epiphany 4 – January 30, 2011
It’s a little late in the week, I know, but I spent yesterday evening at a lecture by Bart Ehrman at UT Knoxville – good event, very well attended, and nice to have a NT scholar of this caliber come to town!
Anyway, you can find this week’s Lectionary readings here: http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/texts.php?id=16. (Hint: right-click the link and you should get the option of opening it in a separate tab or window.)
Micah 6:1-8
Micah is kind of a fascinating character. He was active during roughly the same time period as Isaiah (the one of chapters 1-39) – the latter half of the 8th century BC, the time of the Assyrian takeover of northern Israel. And like Isaiah, he was active in the southern kingdom of Judah. But unlike Isaiah, who spent time advising the king in Jerusalem, Micah was a working-class prophet from a rural village called Moresheth-gath. So while Isaiah preached that God would protect Jerusalem from the Assyrians, Micah’s message was just the opposite: he viewed the political and religious establishment based in Jerusalem as corrupt, exploitative of regular folks, and he believed that God would use the Assyrians to punish the southern kingdom. (He was wrong, as it turned out, but the Babylonians did the job 150 or so years later.)
I go into all this background because it helps to set the context for the OT reading, in which essentially God’s people are put on trial before God for their injustice. It appears to be a kind of breach-of-contract suit where God is saying, “We had a deal, and I held up my end, and I gave you plenty of opportunities to perform your part of the bargain, but now I’ve had enough; I’m taking you to court and I will have justice!” That’s why, vs. 1-2, God says he has a “controversy” with the people and invites them to “plead your case.” Then, vs. 3-5, God as Plaintiff recounts all the ways that God has held up his part of the bargain -- rescuing them from bondage in Egypt, giving them leadership, fighting for them -- “the saving acts of the Lord.”
In vs. 6-7, the people as Defendant answer in a way that’s familiar to lawyers: “What does your client want? What would satisfy your client? How can we work this out?” The gist of these verses is, “Is there a ritual sacrifice great enough to fix this?” These verses show what Micah thought of the whole sacrificial system: that it drained rural communities of their resources and kept the people from focusing on the heart of the Torah. Well, finally in v. 8, Micah pronounces the verdict: “The Defendant is hereby ordered to do justice, love kindness and walk humbly before the Plaintiff. Case closed.”
1 Corinthians 1:18-31
In the interest of time I’m going to have to skip a long discussion of the Epistle text this week. I will simply lift up vs. 28-29, where Paul says God has chosen “what is low and despised in the world, things that are not” – i.e., crucifixion – “to reduce to nothing things that are” – i.e., religion characterized by displays of power (wisdom! signs!) – “so that no one might boast in the presence of God.” In last week’s post I discussed the context of the Corinthian church, where different factions were trying to one-up each other. Here, Paul is saying there’s no point in vying for influence and power over each other because, with Jesus’ crucifixion, God has made us all equally foolish. The other side of the coin, though, as he says in vs. 30-31, is that in Jesus we all have equal access to “life”, “wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption….”
Matthew 5:1-12
The Gospel reading is the opening of the Sermon on the Mount. I don’t know about you, but my traditional Sunday School-type imagining of the Sermon on the Mount is that there are all these people gathered around listening to Jesus. (“He said, ‘Blessed are the cheesemakers’…”) Wrong! As the first verse says clearly, when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain and sat down, and his disciples came to him; and he “taught them.” So these three chapters of teaching are about forming his community of followers. (For a whole book on this, check out John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus.) And Jesus starts off by reorienting how they/we view the world. He does this by redefining who the “fortunate ones” are, and his basic theme is that the losers in our world will be winners in God’s kingdom. The word usually translated “Blessed” is makarioi meaning happy/fortunate/blessed. And notice the verb tenses: “Blessed are the… for they will be….” Jesus is instructing his disciples not to just see the world in terms of how things look now, but in light of what God has in mind.
Jesus says the “kingdom of the heavens” (which is Matthew’s term for God’s reign) belongs not to the strong and well-adjusted but to the “poor/broken in spirit.” Those who mourn in this world are fortunate because they’ll be comforted in God’s reign; those who are humble in this world are fortunate because they will eventually come into possession of the earth. Those who are hungry and thirsty for righteousness are fortunate because, in God’s reign, they’re going to be well fed. (See my discussion of “righteousness” in Matthew in the post for January 9.) Those who are merciful will receive mercy; those who are clean/pure of heart will see God (note: this appears to be a reference to Psalm 24). The “peacemakers” (a literal translation of the Greek word) are fortunate because in God’s reign, they will be called God’s children. Those who are persecuted because of righteousness are fortunate because the “kingdom of the heavens” belongs to them (presumably they will be sharing with the poor in spirit).
This lesson reaches a climax in vs. 11-12 when Jesus speaks directly to the disciples. He point: if those who have it bad are fortunate, then those who have it really bad are the most fortunate of all. He says, “You are fortunate when they insult you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil about you because of me.” This likely reflects the experiences of the Christian community for whom Matthew’s gospel was written – i.e., that others were persecuting them and saying bad things about them. If you notice, it looks like someone along the way added the word “falsely” just to clarify that the persecution was unjustified. Anyway, in v. 12 Jesus says to these “Rejoice and be extremely joyful, for your compensation is great in the heavens.”
Works Consulted: Rhonda Burnette-Bletsch, Studying the Old Testament: A Companion
Works Consulted: Rhonda Burnette-Bletsch, Studying the Old Testament: A Companion
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Epiphany 3 – January 23, 2011
This week's readings can be viewed at http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/texts.php?id=15
Isaiah 9:1-4
This week’s OT reading promises better times for God’s people. The “land of Zebulun and Naphtali” refers to parts of northern Israel
Finally, this week the OT reading is quoted in the Gospel reading, giving us an explicit interrelationship between the two.
Romans 1:10-18
The situation related in this Epistle lesson is familiar to anyone who has experienced really ugly conflict in the church. Paul says the congregation should be “united in the same mind and the same purpose”; unfortunately, he’s heard about divisions among them. The Corinthian Christians have divided themselves into factions, each aligning itself with a different authority figure. One group claims Paul’s authority for its position; another claims the authority of Peter (Cephas); heck, one group even claims they represent Christ himself (presumably a trump card). Paul resents the very idea that the body of Christ could be divided in this way; beyond that he resents being co-opted into someone’s agenda (verse 13) – having his words and actions twisted, taken out of context, and used to serve someone else’s purposes.
Part of what seems to have been going on is that people in the various factions started claiming they were actually baptized in the name of Paul, Apollos, Peter, etc., as a way of bolstering their positions. For this reason, Paul says he’s glad he didn’t baptize anybody but Crispus and Gaius, so at least nobody else can use that to claim any special authority from him. Then, realizing someone is likely to go checking his figures, he catches himself (v. 16) and admits he can’t remember the exact number.
Paul reaches his point in verses 17-18, when he calls these quarreling people back to a focus on the message of the cross. In my experience, the ugly kind of conflict is so often about power – one group trying to gain power over others. That’s why these last verses are so striking to me: because the “message” Paul is talking about is that God has acted to save the world by the ultimate act of weakness – Jesus’ crucifixion. He adds that his own lack of eloquence in preaching (another “weakness”) keeps the message from being “emptied (kenōthē) of its power.” He admits that, seen from the outside, the message of the cross is “foolishness” (mōria, as in “moron”), but to us it’s the “power of God.” In other words, grabbing for power just divides and ultimately weakens the church, but the weakness of the cross unites and strengthens us. Final note: as I read this passage I’m reminded of Philippians 2:1-11, where Paul encourages another congregation to “be of the same mind” and focuses their attention on Christ who “emptied himself” (ekenōsen) to the point of dying on the cross.
Matthew 4:12-23
Before I get into this week’s Gospel reading, I need to correct something in last week’s post. In discussing John’s gospel, I seemed to suggest that Thomas doesn’t show up in the other gospels – which is just wrong. Thomas is listed as one of the twelve disciples in the other gospels; it’s just that John is the only one that gives us the stories about him.
Anyway, this week’s Gospel reading is Matthew’s story of Jesus calling his first disciples. Matthew begins (v. 12) by telling us that Jesus returned to Galilee from the Judean wilderness, where he’d gone to be baptized and where he faced temptation. We then get the interesting note that Jesus moved from Nazareth to Capernaum (incidentally, Mark also at one point refers to Jesus being “at home” in Capernaum Capernaum
After reading last week’s lesson from John, we immediately notice that Matthew tells an entirely different story about Simon and Andrew. John didn’t mention them being fishermen; he implied that Jesus met them in Bethany , which is in Judea ; and he said that John the Baptist introduced Andrew to Jesus, and that Andrew then brought Simon. Here in Matthew, of course, they meet Jesus while fishing together on the Sea of Galilee . (Favorite childhood memory: the red leather Bible I got in third grade had a photo of “fishermen on the Sea of Galilee ” in a boat with an outboard motor.)
E. P. Sanders points out in The Historical Figure of Jesus that Simon and Andrew are doing a different kind of fishing from James and John. Simon and Andrew are using a “casting net” - standing in the surf using, casting it out and pulling it back in. This kind of fishing didn’t require a boat. James and John, though, have a boat which implies fishing by dragnet – a weighted net that could be dragged behind the boat to catch more fish. That is, James and John – or more likely father Zebedee – had fancier equipment. Sanders says, “There may have been a social differentiation between those who could afford boats and larger drag-nets and those who had to cast from the shore.”
At any rate, what gets me in this reading is that Jesus calls, and these four go. Matthew is very explicit about saying that Simon and Andrew “left their nets,” which were their means for making a living, “and followed him.” They just quit their jobs and joined Jesus. (For some reason that flight attendant who slid down the airplane chute into his fifteen minutes of fame just flashed across my mind.) James and John leave not only their nets but a boat and their father as well. In other words, they leave a whole family business – which probably made Zebedee none too proud. Later on in Matthew's story (19:27ff.), after Jesus has compared rich people entering the kingdom to a camel going through the eye of a needle, Peter recalls this episode for him: “Look, we’ve left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” Jesus answers that "everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first."
Friday, January 14, 2011
Epiphany 2 – January 16, 2011
Isaiah 49:1-7
This reading is the second of the “servant songs” in Isaiah (see last week’s post for general discussion). Last week I said that it seems the “servant” in these texts is Israel itself as a people; I still think so, but some parts of this week’s lesson complicate that theory a little. In particular, verses 1-2 sound like classic calling-of-a-prophet stuff, making it seem as if maybe the “servant” is the prophet. For example, compare verse 1 to Jeremiah 1:5; also, “he made my mouth like a sharp sword” in verse 2 sounds like preparing a prophet to speak God’s word. But then, in verse 3, the servant is explicitly identified as Israel: “You are my servant, Israel…” Then again, though, in verse 5, it sounds like the servant’s job was to “bring Jacob back” to God. And verse 6 is maybe the most confusing of all: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” It’s confusing because it makes more sense for a prophet to “raise up the tribes of Israel” than for Israel to raise itself up; at the same time, it makes way more sense for Israel as a whole people to be given “as a light to the nations.”
Enter the scholars. I find the note in the HCSB helpful: J.J.M. Roberts says that grammatically, the one raising up the tribes of Jacob and restoring the survivors of Israel isn’t the servant, but rather God. He says a better translation is, “It is too light a thing, you being my servant, that I should only raise up the tribes of Jacob and restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations…” Finally, in verse 7 it says that right now God’s people may be suffering in exile, but the other nations will eventually stand up and take notice because of God’s faithfulness to them.
What’s the upshot? I think it’s that (1) God is promising rescue and restoration to God’s people; and (2) it’s not only for their own sake (that would be too light and insubstantial) but for the sake of all the peoples of the world. In other words, it would seem, God is remaking his people into a “servant” people, a people with a mission beyond themselves.
1 Corinthians 1:1-9
For this week’s Epistle reading, we have the very beginning of 1 Corinthians. Just a word about the letters to the church in Corinth: we have more correspondence with this congregation than with any other in the NT. Of course there’s 1 and 2 Corinthians, which are both pretty long as Paul’s letters go. Then 1 Corinthians 5 mentions an earlier letter, and 2 Corinthians mentions still another “letter of tears.” Parts of what we call 2 Corinthians may actually be that letter, or part of it, or (parts of) still other letter(s). At any rate, 1 and 2 Corinthians reveal a depth of relationship between Paul and this congregation – and it’s by no means always easy or happy - that we don’t see as much in his other letters.
Paul’s letter’s typically start with a greeting and then a prayer of thanksgiving for the congregation to whom he’s writing. (The notable exception being Galatians, in which he’s so mad he skips the prayer.) That’s what we have in this reading, and I like to think about it this way: as Paul greets and prays for this congregation, we can also hear him greeting and praying for our congregations. This is all the more true because in v. 2 he explicitly includes all Christians everywhere.
So what do we hear him saying and praying to and for us? First, in v. 2 he refers to us as “those who are made holy in Christ Jesus, called to be holy ones.” This is a good reminder because our day-to-day lives may not feel all that holy much of the time. What I think it means that we are “made holy and called to be holy ones” is that we are tasked with helping to reveal Jesus in and to the world. In vs. 4-9, Paul gives thanks for the grace of God given to us in Jesus; he says we have been “made rich” in him so that we don’t lack any grace-gift as we’re waiting for the ultimate revealing of Jesus. God will strengthen us to the end. A couple of things to highlight here: first, for Paul there is a trajectory to life and history; we are headed somewhere, specifically toward the “revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Second, Paul lifts up the richness of Christian life – that we are flush with all these grace-gifts (“charisma,” see 12:1-11) to equip us in our job of revealing Jesus in the world.
With his reference to “speech and knowledge of every kind” (v. 5) Paul gets in a subtle dig at the Corinthians and their obsession with certain grace-gifts, i.e. speaking in tongues. I think the dig Paul gets in at our expense has to do with “richness” and our obsessive focus on financial wealth or scarcity.
John 1:29-42
The gospel of John is some wild stuff. It’s like a parallel-universe gospel. The story it tells about Jesus is in many ways the same as that told in Matthew, Mark, and Luke: there’s healing on the Sabbath, walking on water, feeding thousands, triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Many of the characters are the same: John the Baptist, Mary and Martha, Simon Peter. Then there are some close-but-not-quite-the-same-elements. For example, Jesus’ mother is here but she’s never named; he cleanses the Temple but it’s at the beginning of the story instead of toward the end; the Samaritan woman at the well kind of reminds us of the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7 / Canaanite woman in Matthew 15, but it’s also different. Then there are some events and characters that are just different: Wedding at Cana? Nicodemus? Footwashing? Thomas? And there’s a ton of teaching material that is unique to John, from being born-from-above to abiding in the True Vine. When those wacky cats the Jesus Seminar were casting their votes to decide the relative authenticity of Jesus’ words – a process which resulted in a version of the gospels with his words printed in shades ranging from magenta (yep) to black (nope) – if I’m not mistaken the entire gospel of John came out black. Not that they were biased or anything. Because it was a totally objective process.
What I’m driving at here is just that John’s gospel is different from the others. And I will make just a few observations about today’s reading. First, John the Baptist calls Jesus the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (v. 29) – which is an odd term. On the one hand, it seems to refer to a ritual described in Leviticus 16 where the priest would ritually place the sins of the community on a live goat and then send it away. But it was a goat, not a lamb. However, a lamb was used for Passover, and in John’s gospel Jesus is crucified on Passover (instead of the next day, as told by Matthew, Mark, and Luke). So in that sense John apparently regards Jesus as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.”
Second, in a case of close-but-not-quite-the-same, John doesn’t explicitly tell about Jesus being baptized or even actually come out and say he was baptized, but John the Baptist comes really close in vs. 32-33 when he relates his experience of seeing the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus and hearing God speak about him.
Third, and connected with #2, words in John’s gospel never mean just one thing, and there’s constantly misunderstanding between Jesus’ hearers who take his words literally and Jesus himself who means something else. As an example, in v. 32 John the Baptist says the Holy Spirit “remained” on Jesus. Then in vs. 38-39 those first disciples asking where Jesus is “staying” and then see where he’s “staying.” Seems innocent enough, but if we turn over to chapter 15 we hear Jesus talking all about how we should “abide” in him and he will “abide” in us. You guessed it – all these words are the same in Greek, a word meaning remain/ stay/ dwell. So the idea is, John the Baptist saw the Holy Spirit "remain/dwell" on Jesus - if we know that Jesus "dwells" with the Father and intends for us to "dwell" in him, then the Holy Spirit "dwelling" on Jesus might indicate to us Jesus' "dwelling" with God. So then, when these disciples ask Jesus where he's "staying/dwelling," and they to go see his house, we understand that they don't get it yet - the house isn't really where he "dwells." But here at the beginning of John's gospel it's just nicely, subtly confusing.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Baptism of the Lord - January 9, 2010
You can find this week’s Lectionary texts here: http://lectionary.library.vanderbilt.edu/texts.php?id=13.
Isaiah 42:1-9
This week’s OT reading is the first of Isaiah’s “servant songs” (the others are found in chapters 49, 50, and 52-53). These pieces of text are referred to this way because they all focus on the identity and role of a “servant” who has been given a special mission by God, but they are not explicit about exactly who the servant is – whether a particular person or perhaps Israel
The context of this reading within Isaiah suggests that the “servant” refers to Israel itself (the people): see for example 41:8-10 (“But you, Israel
Anyway, there’s also historical context to consider with this reading. The material in chapters 40-55 comes from the period of the Exile in Babylon
So, what does the text say? It says the servant has God’s spirit and will bring “justice to the nations”(v. 1). This is interesting because it’s a mission that goes beyond the bounds of Israel
In other words, out of the humiliation of the Exile, God’s people get a surprising new mission – not one of violence and revenge and nationalism, but rather one of universal compassion and justice. It’s easy to see why the church sees Jesus in the servant songs.
Acts 10:34-43
This reading emphasizes the universal nature of God’s salvation in Jesus. At this point in Acts, Cornelius – a gentile – has been brought together with Peter and is hearing the news about Jesus. This meeting is a big deal for both of them, as it realigns Peter’s whole understanding of God’s plan. The key verses for me are 34-35: that “God shows no partiality” even between Jews and gentiles. Impartiality was already understood to be part of God’s nature: see Deut. 10:17-18, which says God isn’t partial to the rich but rather takes care of the poor and strangers. But here Peter comes to understand that God’s impartiality extends even to who can be part of God’s covenant.
Matthew 3:13-17
OK kids, I have to admit that I broke out the Greek NT for this week’s Gospel reading - I figured, it’s short and perhaps my limited Greek skills could handle it. And I did make a few interesting discoveries.
As this Sunday is Baptism of the Lord, we get Matthew’s version of Jesus’ baptism by John. This is a story that it’s good to read in “gospel parallel” – with the versions from the other gospels right alongside. You can do that at this link: http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/meta-4g.htm - just scroll down the Matthew column until you get to “The Baptism of Jesus” and then click the little book icons there to bring the other gospels’ versions alongside. Pretty cool.
The first thing I notice in this text is that, while Mark and Luke just say Jesus came to John and happened to get baptized, Matthew says in v. 13 that Jesus came to John to be baptized by him. In other words, whereas there might be some question as to why Jesus would receive John’s baptism if he’s the Messiah, Matthew makes no apologies – Jesus came intending to be baptized. Then, as we see, Matthew gives us this little conversation between the two of them in vs. 14-15. It says John was preventing him, saying “I need to be baptized by you, and you’re coming to me?” But answering Jesus said to him, “Let it be for now, for in this way it’s fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he let him, or he permitted it. I think this conversation between John and Jesus is pretty significant, because of the words Jesus uses – “fulfill all righteousness.” These are really important words in Matthew, as a scan of the Sermon on the Mount (chapters 5-7) shows us. In Matthew’s version of the Beatitudes/blessings (5:3-12), Jesus blesses those who “thirst for righteousness” and those “persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” (For extra credit you can compare to Luke’s version.) “Righteousness” means, in Matthew, right relationship with God particularly as shown by our behavior. Anyway, then in 5:17-20 Jesus says he’s come to “fulfill the law” and that our “righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees” for us to enter the kingdom of heaven. In 6:33, Jesus says to “seek first God’s kingdom and his righteousness” – in Luke it just says “seek his kingdom.” Finally, Jesus’ climactic parable/vision in Matthew is the “sheep and goats” passage (25:31-46) in which those who enter his kingdom are the “righteous” who “did unto the least of these.”
So what does it mean that Jesus’ baptism “fulfills all righteousness”? I think it means that Jesus accepts baptism by John, who embodies the OT prophetic tradition, in order to take that tradition further, reveal its purpose and bring it to fruition. This makes sense, I think, when we consider what Jesus says about John in chapter 11: “There’s been no one greater than him up to this point, but “the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.”
To finish out the reading, it says after he was baptized he “immediately” came up out of the water, and - Look! – the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the spirit of God coming down like a dove and coming on him; and – Listen! – a voice from the heavens saying, “This is my son the beloved, in whom I take delight.” Incidentally, the “Look!” and “Listen!” are right in the Greek text – traditionally they’re translated as the bland “behold” or “lo,” and for some reason the NRSV ignores them completely. The same word is used in the birth story (1:20) when the angel comes to Joseph, and then again when the magi show up (2:1). It adds drama and indicates that something big is happening, like “Check it out!”
Works Consulted:
J. J. M. Roberts’ notes on the Isaiah text, and Dennis Duling’s notes on the Matthew text, in the HarperCollins Study Bible
Synopsis of the Four Gospels
Daniel Harrington’s Matthew commentary in the Sacra Pagina series
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)