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) – which presumably was a question because God’s holy city had been overrun, destroyed and emptied of its inhabitants by the Babylonians.  The people are assured that God could no more forget Zion than a nursing mother can forget her baby – a wonderful (and, obviously, explicitly female) image.  But really, it’s the last image in the reading that fires my imagination: “I have inscribed you on the palms of my hands” – like, God tattooed a map of the holy city on God’s hands as a lasting “note to self.”

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 and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”

Works Consulted:                             

J.J.M. Roberts’ notes to the Isaiah text in the HarperCollins Study Bible

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

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!

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

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.  This was a time of some frustration for God’s people because, as Rhonda Burnette-Bletsch puts it, “at the end of what was supposed to be a triumphant return from exile, they were confronted with the ruins of Jerusalem.”  They didn’t understand why Israel’s glory days hadn’t come back when they returned to their promised land.  It’s like when you’re looking forward to some event, and you build it up in your mind, and then when it finally happens the reality isn’t at all what you imagined. 

            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 that they’re completely ignoring the poor.  Verse 3b suggests to me a wealthier person saying, “Oh, I can’t work today because, you know, I’m fasting” – causing poorer people to have to work that much harder.  Verse 5 reminds me of Jesus’ words on fasting in Matthew 6:16.  Then in vs. 6-7, the prophet says that real fasting consists of serving the poor and bringing justice to the oppressed – real Matthew-25-sheep-and-goats sort of stuff.  In fact, it’s easy to see where Jesus got some of his best material.

            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