Category: Lectionary

Lectionary

• 2Samuel 11:1-15 and Psalm 14
• Ephesians 3:14-21
• John 6:1-21

Introduction

This week’s lectionary texts offer a diverse biblical experience, ranging from the predatory sexual behaviour of David to the spiritual symbolism of Christ as the holy bread that comes down from heaven to give life to the world. One imagines that few congregations will hear a sermon about David’s murderous lust, but that there will be many sermons preached on the significance of the Eucharist and the divinity of Jesus?

First Reading: David as sacred hero and sexual predator

It comes as something of a shock for us to find that David (who is mostly presented as a heroic figure and someone close to God) is also remembered as man who would abuse his power to take women for his own sexual gratification, even arranging for the murder of his victim’s husband to cover up his adultery.

Indeed, the virtue of the secondary victim (Uriah the Hittite, a foreign mercenary serving as a senior officer in David’s army) is far superior to that of David. Uriah will not betray either his king nor his own troops. He is presented as a figure of classic virtue within the misogynist values of his own culture. David, on the other hand, is a corrupt and predatory ruler.

This story had its original meaning in the vivid narrative of David’s court history (2Sam 9-20 & 1Kings 1-2). That ancient story explored the internal tensions of the Davidic House, and Bathsheba had to figure in the account since she was the mother of David’s successor, Solomon. As the story unfolds she will emerge as a woman of power and influence in the court.

As portrayed in this narrative David is a complex and ambiguous character, although episodes and attitudes that offend modern readers may not have been understood as shameful in the circles that first composed the narrative.

In the case of David’s sexual abuse of Bathsheba, the Bible deals with the offence in a way that hardly soothes contemporary sensibilities. Rather than depose the male who has misused his power to gain sexual favors from a woman who he was expected to protect, David continues as king and eventually marries Bathsheba. However, the child born as a result of their intercourse is struck down by God and dies after a short illness.

As churches of all denominations are slowly facing our own histories of sexual abuse by clergy and others with power within our faith communities, this ancient story of David’s predatory sexual appetite sounds all too familiar.

This is surely one of those parts of the Bible where the acclamation, “[For/Hear] the word of the Lord,” is an invitation to wrestle with the meaning of the text rather than to accept it at face value. What does the Spirit say to the churches today through such a passage?

Indeed, how can such an account be read aloud in the liturgical celebration? Given the statistics on sexual abuse, how will such a story impact on victims and perpetrators?

Although not included in the collection, this story could well qualify for inclusion in Phyllis Trible’s powerful monograph, Texts of Terror.

Second Reading: Filled with the fullness of God

The passage from Ephesians 3 seems to express the reflections of a maturing and self-aware Christian tradition. While traditionally attributed to Paul, Ephesians has none of the urgency of preparing for the apocalyptic return of Jesus that we find in authentic texts from the first generation, and especially in Paul. Instead, we find a question more familiar to Christians in subsequent generations: namely, how do we experience the holy reality of God within ourselves?

The concept of glorifying God “in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations for ever and ever” seems a long way removed from Paul’s understanding of Christianity. Such a turn of phrase presupposes a more settled Christian community that expects itself to have a longstanding role in the divine purposes.

While most likely not written by Paul, this text still provides a 1C example of the natural trinitarianism found at the spiritual heart of lived Christian experience. Whatever historical reconstruction of Christian origins we find persuasive, this prayer captures the essence of Christianity as a way of living as people of faith. The passage is also profoundly trinitarian without any attempt to define and coerce. It simply celebrates the Christian experience of God: as Father of all, as Spirit, and as Christ within us.

Gospel: Jesus feeds five thousand

This is the first in a series of five Sundays that will draw on John 6 for the Gospel:

• John 6:1-21 – feeding of the 5,000 (vss. 1-15) and Jesus walking on water (vvs. 16-21)
• John 6:24-35 – controversy over the bread God gives
• John 6:35,41-51 – controversy over Jesus
• John 6:51-58 – eat my flesh, drink my blood
• John 6:56-69 – Jesus loses many disciples

Miracle of the multiplication

This Byzantine mosaic is preserved under a modern church today, but it was once part of a church which commemorated Jesus’ feeding of the 5000.

SOURCE: BiblePlaces.com
Behind the story about Jesus using five loaves and two small fish to feed a multitude in the wilderness lies the harsh reality of life under military occupation by a foreign empire. The Roman occupation was one of the basic facts of life for Jews in ancient Palestine: and it was a reality that challenged their sense of identity and destiny.

Occupation by foreign powers tends to have that effect, as can be observed in more recent experiences of occupation and exploitation. As we have seen in the emergence of militant fundamentalism in so many different religious communities, the “occupation” can be cultural or economic and need not involve a direct military presence. After an initial response of retreat and seeming decline, a repressed culture can sometimes resurge with a fresh vision and a renewed sense of identity.

Like their modern counterparts in Christianity, Islam and Judaism, many Jews during the Second Temple period looked forward to a time when the people of God would not suffer under the yoke of foreign domination. Many held to an apocalyptic form of eschatology that helped to explain the present predicament while also promising a better outcome through a sudden divine reversal of their circumstances, and some actively resisted by force of arms.

Jesus’ disciples and the earliest Christians more generally, would have included people who held each of these views.

While there was an upsurge of messianic expectation among Jewish people in this period, there were great variations in this expectation of a messiah. Groups such as the Qumran community by the Dead Sea expected both the traditional royal/military savior as well as a second priestly/religious one.

What all these ideas had in common was a divinely anointed figure sent to rescue Israel from oppression. The Messiah (Gk, christos) was not necessarily expected to perform miracles but, as Chapman (The Orphan Gospel, 1993:49ff) points out, the Messiah was expected to rescue God’s people from oppression. In many cases, this expectation took the form of a “second Moses” (cf Deuteronomy 18.15).
There were three possible signs by which people expected to tell that the new Moses had come amongst them (see the examples cited in Chapman, 1993:53f):

• victory over the turbulent waters
• giving of the Law
• miraculous feeding with “bread from heaven”

The following citation from a rabbinic commentary in the 4C CE captures these expectations nicely:

Rabbi Berekia said in the name of Rabbi Jicchaq:
As the first redeemer [Moses] so the last redeemer [the Christ].
As it is said of the first redeemer:
And Moses took his wife and his sons and had them ride on an ass (Exod. 4.20),
so the last redeemer, for it is said: Lowly, and riding on an ass (Zech. 9.9).
As the first redeemer caused manna to come down,
for it is said: Lo, I cause bread to rain down upon you from heaven (Exod. 16.4),
so the last redeemer will cause manna to come down,
for it is said: White bread will lie upon the earth (Ps 72.16, Midrash).
As the first redeemer caused the well to spring forth (Num. 20.11),
so the last redeemer will cause water to spring forth,
for it is said: And a fountain will break forth out of the house of Yahweh. (Joel 3.18).

This citation also illustrates the pesher interpretation of biblical texts which was so popular in ancient times. With such an approach to the sacred texts, phrases could be lifted out of context and seen as timeless aphorisms that spoke directly to the contemporary situation of the reader. It is helpful to keep this style of biblical interpretation in mind, when pondering the way in which the first Christians understood the Hebrew Bible and applied its phrases to aspects of the life of Jesus.
Related to such an approach to sacred tradition is the interest in symbolic numbers. Just as the number “666” sends a shiver down the spine of the Christian person, so the pious Jew of ancient times would respond to the symbolic power of numbers. Key numbers included five, seven and twelve.

The symbolism of the feeding miracle is especially developed in John 6 with its extended discourse by Jesus on himself as the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to all who eat it. Such a line of thought cannot be plausibly attributed to Jesus, but it does reveal the increasingly complex ways in which 1C Christians began to reflect on the meaning of Jesus.
While the symbolic significance of Jesus feeding the multitudes in the wilderness with miraculous bread is clear, the historicity of the account is problematic.

Although the miracle of the loaves is the only miracle to be reported in all four Gospels, the Jesus Seminar voted every occurence of this tradition BLACK; an entirely negative assessment. It did allow a GRAY vote for the proposition that “A group of at least 500 people participated in a visionary experience, which came to be regarded as an appearance of the risen Jesus. [1 Cor 15:6]”

Gerd Lüdemann (Jesus, 45) offers the following historical judgment of the account in Mark 6: “The formation of this story derives from the needs of the community. Its historical value is nil. Anyone is free to accept the table fellowship of Jesus and his followers as a starting point for the rise of this story. But that is rather different from the feeding of the 5000.”

Even John P. Meier shies away from the miraculous element of this tradition. In Marginal Jew (II,966) he suggests that the Gospel stories of Jesus feeding a multitude preserve a tradition about “some especially memorable communal meal of bread and fish” but does not think it possible to offer a judgment on whether anything miraculous was involved in the meal event. See pp. 950-967 for his complete discussion.
The distinctive features of John’s version of this well-known tradition have also attracted some comment, and these are reviewed at length by Raymond Brown (Gospel of John AB 29, 236-50). The following elements are peculiar to John’s version of the story:

• Passover timing of the miracle
• Identification of Philip and Andrew
• Some specific terms used: paidarion (“lad”), barley loaves, and opsarion (“dried fish”)
• Marked eucharistic features
• Pressure to proclaim Jesus as a king

The eucharistic features of the account in John are especially interesting, as they possibly involve parallels with the OT story of Elisha feeding a crowd with barley loaves:

A man came from Baal-shalishah, bringing food from the first fruits to the man of God: twenty loaves of barley and fresh ears of grain in his sack. Elisha said, “Give it to the people and let them eat.”€ But his servant said, “How can I set this before a hundred people?” So he repeated, “Give it to the people and let them eat, for thus says the LORD, ‘They shall eat and have some left.’” He set it before them, they ate, and had some left, according to the word of the LORD. (2Kings 4:42-44 NRSV)

Brown notes that there may also be some link to the tradition found in the Didache:

And with regard to the fragmented Bread:
“We thank you, our Father,
for the life and knowledge
which you have made known to us
through Jesus your servant.
To you be glory forever.
/4/ As this < … > lay scattered upon the mountains
and became one when it had been gathered,
so may your church be gathered into your kingdom
from the ends of the earth. (Did 9:3-4) [Hermenia]

Brown (p. 248) comments:

Besides the obvious parallels with John’s account in the use of klasma [“fragmented bread”], eucharistein [“give thanks”], synagein [“gather”] (the last of which is peculiar to John’s multiplication account), we should note that only John emphasizes that the multiplication took place on a mountain, and only John mentions the theme of Jesus as king (vs. 15).

Gospel: Jesus calms the stormy sea

For material relating to the calming of the sea in the second half of this week’s Gospel see:

• Jesus and the Stormy Sea
• 128 Walking on Water
• 413 Peter Sinks

Jesus Database

• 003 Bread and Fish
• 128 Walking on Water
• 413 Peter Sinks

Liturgies and Prayers

For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

Other recommended sites include:

• Iona Community
• Laughing Bird
• Lectionary & Liturgy Forum
• The Text This Week

Music Suggestions

See David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre.

Lectionary

• 2 Samuel 6:1-5,12b-19 and Psalm 24 (or Amos 7:7-15 and Psalm 85:8-13)
• Ephesians 1:3-14
• Mark 6:14-29

Introduction

At first glance the readings from the Hebrew Bible and the Gospel passage have little in common. However, they do share a common interest in the question of place: how is the presence of the sacred to be recognised and affirmed?

• One Jewish response to that question is found in the tradition of the Ark of the Covenant – an object whose exact form and significance is lost to us, but which was remembered as a symbol that was not tied to a specific location.
• Another Jewish response, and one shared with many other communities in Palestine as well as in other places, is to identify the “dwelling place of the Name” with a specific holy site. In time Jerusalem came to have that significance for the Jewish tradition, but the alternative reading from Amos reflects a stage when there were rival royal sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan. Interestingly, none of the prophets from the 9C BCE or the 8C BCE condemn these northern sanctuaries or criticise their use of the golden calf as a symbol for Yahweh.
• The Gospel reflects the Christian belief that God is to be found in Jesus, and in the community of people gathered around his message and program—to cite John A.T. Robinson’s evocative phrase, Jesus is “the human face of God.”

First Reading: Putting God in his place

The Ark of the Covenant

For the First Reading, the RCL continues its series of readings from the rise of David. This week we have the account of the transfer of the “Ark of the Covenant” into David’s new capital, Jerusalem.

The Ark was a traditional Hebrew holy object, perhaps some kind of portable shrine. According to sacred legend, it had been created by Moses following divine instructions during the time of the exodus. Along with the large copper serpent affixed to the temple wall, sacred objects such as the Ark later became a theological embarrassment to an increasingly iconoclastic Jewish tradition.

• Wikipedia article [1]

Photographs of modern reconstructions of the Ark:

• View of the Ark [2]
• Detail of the winged figures [3]

Its significance in this passage is to serve as tangible expression of God’s blessing of David. By bringing the Ark of Yahweh to his new capital, David is sometimes thought to have been engaged in a political strategy to align the traditions of the ancient Yahwistic confederacy with the royal ideology of Jerusalem.

Earlier tribal league notions of equality under the covenant are about to be displaced by a centralized royal state which will tax the population to finance the full array of public institutions expected of any self-respecting Middle Eastern power at the time. In time the traditional 12 tribes of Israel become little more than administrative zones for the king’s tax collectors.

In fact, such an interpretation of the text attributes greater historicity to the account than it deserves. It is unlikely that David was engaged in anything as grand as the empire building program attributed to him by the Deuteronomistic historian. Nor was the pre-David political situation anything like the well-developed 12 member amphictyony proposed by classic mid-20C histories of ancient Israel.

However, we can appreciate that the narrative seeks to portray David as a pious Yahwist who was devoted to traditional forms of Israelite religion. Within the world of the biblical narrative, the reception of the Ark into Jerusalem represents a transition from the tribal league model to a royal model. The hopes of the nation now rest on the faithfulness of the king and the end of the story (in 2 Kings) will show that the nation is destined for disaster under such an arrangement.

This episode is a key element in the larger story, but we should not mistake it as a memory of some historical event; let alone speculate on the political and religious strategies of a “David” who is more of a mythical character here than a figure of history.

Amos

The prophet Amos appears in the Hebrew Bible as the first of the prophets whose words (rather than their legendary actions) are recorded as a prophetic message to subsequent generations. As such Amos marks an important transition in the development of the biblical religious tradition, as the prophetic book begins to displace both priest and prophet, those two traditional authorities in ancient Israel’s religion.

• Introductory essay on Amos [4]

In the excerpt set for this week we have an account of Amos confronting the priest in charge of the royal sanctuary at Bethel. While Amos escapes with his life (unlike John the Baptist following his confrontation with Herod Antipas), the confrontation serves as a reminder of the inherent conflict between those who speak for God’s values and those who exercise power in human society. Like John and Jesus after him, Amos is a prophet who must declare the message God gives him to deliver.

Second Reading: A letter to the Ephesians

This week we begin a series of readings from the Letter to the Ephesians. In the RCL cycle, 7 successive Sundays will draw on this major NT writing:

• Eph 1:1-14
• Eph 2:11-22
• Eph 3:14-21
• Eph 4:1-16
• Eph 4:(17-24)25-5:2
• Eph 5:11-21(22-31)
• Eph 6:10-20

Ephesus was a significant Greek city in Roman times, and its physical remains continue to attract tourists and pilgrims:

• Archaeological Site [5]

The authenticity of the letter to the Ephesians is questioned by most NT scholars, but strongly defended by more conservative scholars. If it is an authentic Pauline writing, Ephesians would have to come from late in Paul’s life (early 60s). On balance it seems unlikely that Paul could have written such a letter. Ephesians may be better understood as revealing how the theology of Paul was modified as his legacy was assimilated into the emerging catholic Christianity around the end of the 1C.

• Online Resources [6]
• Introductory Essay on Ephesians [7]

Gospel: Herod kills John the Baptist

Herods in the New Testament

It can be helpful to clarify the various “Herods” who appear in the NT writings. Mahlon Smith’s “Into His Own” site provides a detailed chart[8], complete with brief biographical sketches on each member of the Herodian families.

In this case, we are dealing with Herod Antipas, the youngest surviving son of Herod. Smith describes his reign as follows:

Though only governor of two small provinces, Antipas locally styled himself “king” & used the name “Herod,” to bolster his claim that he was the true heir to his father’s legacy. With the aid of Roman armies he crushed Galilean rebels & then turned to urbanizing southern Galilee, rebuilding the regional capitol [ Sepphoris ] that the Romans had destroyed in the civil war & dedicating it to the emperor Augustus [calling it Autocratoris: “the Emperor’s city”]. After his Roman patron Tiberius became emperor [14 CE], Antipas decided to build a new & even more splendid Roman style capital for Galilee on the western shore of Lake Gennesaret , naming it Tiberias . To protect his southern flank he formed an alliance with the Arab kingdom of Nabatea by marrying the daughter of the king of Petra, Aretas III, whom he later divorced to marry Herodias , the wife of his half-brother, in total disregard for Jewish Torah.

Like his father Antipas was wary of conservative Jewish critics of his regime & quick to crush popular rabble-rousers, most notably John (Johanan) the Baptizer. His Jewish subjects never forgave him for executing one whom they regarded as God’s agent. When Aretas avenged his daughter’s disgrace by dealing Herod a decisive defeat [36 CE], many regarded it as divine retribution for John’s execution. Antipas’ royal pretensions were further humiliated when the new emperor, Gaius (Caligula) , named his brother-in-law, Agrippa I , “king” over the neighboring provinces [37 CE]. Antipas’ protest of the young emperor’s decision & his demand for equal rank, however, caused Caligula to depose him & send him into exile. He died soon after at Lyons [in France].

For further insight into Galilee under the Herodian ruler, see:

• Josephus: Galilee under Antipas [9]

John the Baptist

L. Michael White (University of Texas at Austin) says of John the Baptist:

Our knowledge of the figure of John the Baptist is very limited. We have only those references to him in the Christian gospels, where he stands alongside of Jesus. We also have references to him in the Jewish historian, Josephus, who was writing toward the end of the first century. So John the Baptist is clearly a very important figure of the time. He was a renowned kind of eccentric, it appears, from the way that Josephus describes him. More … [10]

Harold W. Attridge (Yale Divinity School) comments on the execution of John:

John the Baptist was killed because he was critical of the contemporary Herodian ruler, Herod Antipas. All of the sources agree on that, both Josephus and the testimony of the gospels. Exactly what was involved in that critique is not entirely clear. The material in the gospels suggests that it had to do with Herod’s marital practices and his personal morality. There may have been something more political involved in John’s condemnation of Herod, insofar as Herod Antipas was tied in intimately with the Roman imperial authorities. In any case, John was executed by Herod as a troublemaker and a political upstart. Now, we don’t know how that impacted Jesus, whether on the basis of the death of John he reconsidered the apocalyptic message that had come from John or whether he wanted to continue it and extend it. Both are possible. He never takes a direct stance on that. More … [11]

Jesus Database

• 001 Mission and Message – Mark 6:7-13
• 231 Herod on Jesus – Mark 6:14-16
• 197 Herod beheads John – Mark 6:17-29

See also:

• 058 John Baptizes Jesus
• 085 Greater than John
• 115 Johns Message
• 213 John the Baptist
• 431 Conception of John
• 432 Birth of John

Liturgies and Prayers

For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

Other recommended sites include:

• Iona Community
• Laughing Bird
• The Text This Week

Music Suggestions

See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

• Richard Bruxvoort-Colligan’s WorldMaking Music site
• David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site
• Brenton Prigge’s New Hymn site

Lectionary

• 2Samuel 5:1-5,9-10 and Psalm 48 (or Ezekiel 2:1-5 and Psalm 123)
• 2Corinthians 12:2-10
• Mark 6:1-13

Introduction

This week’s readings offer challenges to several episodes long accepted as historical certainties by readers of the Bible:

• the capture of Jerusalem by David as he becomes ruler of a united kingdom
• Paul’s conversion in the “Damascus road” event
• Jesus’ sermon in the synagogue of his home town, Nazareth

As we have often had occasion to observe, the stories that people of faith tell one another are not neccesarily historically correct. Their value lies not in their historicity but in their capacity to shape and sustain faith. These are mythic stories, and our desire for history is our problem not the concern of the ancient story tellers.

First Reading: David becomes king of All-Israel

The first reading takes up the transition of David from local ruler of the Judah clans around Hebron to king of all Israel, with Jerusalem as his capital.

The set passage omits the description of the capture of the city, with its offensive references to disabled persons as excluded from the presence of God:

The king and his men marched to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, “You will not come in here, even the blind and the lame will turn you back” thinking, “David cannot come in here.” Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, which is now the city of David. David had said on that day, “Whoever would strike down the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack the lame and the blind, those whom David hates.” Therefore it is said, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.” (2Sam 5:6-8 NRSV)

To many commentators this appears to be a reference to the capture of the city after access was gained via the water shaft used to draw water from the Gihon Spring. However, the happy consensus about the identity of this water shaft has collapsed following critical appraisals by Israeli archaeologists; first, Yigal Shiloh (in the1980s) and more recently, Eli Shukron and Ronny Reich:

• The famous tunnels and shafts are now seen as 8C BCE works, perhaps better associated with Hezekiah.
• However these 8C works are seen as improvements to natural fissures that have existed for thousands of years, if not longer.
• It is not clear whether Warren’s Shaft was ever used as a town water point.
• The story of Joab climbing the shaft to gain access to the city may owe as much to later exploits by Jerusalem youths as to any memory of clandestine access by David’s general.

Interestingly, the reference to “the blind and the lame” may have been illuminated by archaeological finds in the ancient Hittite capital:

… the late Prof. Yigael Yadin was the first to suggest a solution that has become generally accepted, by examining the history of other nations in the region. Noting that the Jebusites of Jerusalem were probably of Anatolian-Hittite origin, Yadin made the connection to Hattusha, the ancient Hittite capital, where documents were found that described soldiers taking an oath of loyalty to the ruler.

The soldiers were paraded in front of a blind woman and a deaf man, and told that anyone failing to live up to his oath “will be as these” – that is, will be stricken blind or deaf. The passage about the taking of Jerusalem may refer to a similar idea, where the defenders placed the blind and lame in the front lines as a way of casting a spell on the attackers, threatening them with blindness and lameness. SOURCE:[1]

The nature and extent of David’s empire is very much in question these days, and it is generally acknowledged that the northern kingdom of “Israel” was afar more significant local kingdom than Judah down to the time of its destruction by Assyria around 722 BCE. It was only after the demise of its northern neighbour that Judah was able to project its influence, and talk of an original “united kingdom” is simply myth-making by the much later community of “returnees” from exile in Babylon.

Whatever historical value we may see in these ancient stories of David’s rise to power, there can be no doubt that the myth of David’s Jerusalem continues to exercise a powerful hold on the imagination of Jews, Christians and Muslims.

• Hebron
• The water tunnel (Warren’s Shaft)
• City of David

Second Reading: Paul’s religious experience

In Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, Marcus Borg prefaces his treatment of Paul’s letters in the New Testament with a discussion Paul’s so-called “Damascus Road” experience.

While that phrase has become part of our language, many scholars conclude that Luke had no reliable information about the religious experience that lay at the heart of Paul’s faith in Jesus. Rather, Luke may have created the dramatic conversion scene on the way to Damascus to provide an appearance by the risen Lord to commission Saul as an apostle. The raw material for Luke’s literary creations — including Paul’s controversial claims to apostolic status based on a belated appearance by the risen Jesus, his activity as a persecutor of Jesus’ followers, and his escape from Damascus after becoming a Christian himself—is all to be found in Paul’s own letters: 1 Cor 15:8-10; Gal 1:13-17; 2 Cor 11:21-33.

It is possible that we may get a better sense of some life-changing religious event in Paul’s life from his own words in this passage from 2 Corinthians 12. Is it possible that this mystical experience is the occasion of the “appearance” of Jesus to Paul? How does such a religious experience relate to the description found in Rev 1:10-20?

1:10 I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 1:11 saying, “Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.” 1:12 Then I turned to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 1:13 and in the midst of the lampstands I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest. 1:14 His head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, 1:15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. 1:16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and from his mouth came a sharp, two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining with full force. 1:17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he placed his right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 1:18 and the living one. I was dead, and see, I am alive forever and ever; and I have the keys of Death and of Hades. 1:19 Now write what you have seen, what is, and what is to take place after this. 1:20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

Gospel: Jesus at Nazareth

The Gospel takes up the tradition that Jesus came from Nazareth. Mark seems to have been the source for this story about Jesus making a visit to his hometown near the beginning of his public activity and being somewhat underwhelmed by the reception from his own townsfolk.

It is interesting to note the way this tradition is handled in each of the Synoptic Gospels:

• Jesus First Day – the text in parallel columns

We can observe the steady development of this episode as it is elaborated in different ways by Matthew and Luke:

Matthew is content simply to tidy up a few theological embarrassments that he found in Mark’s account:

• Jesus is no longer a carpenter, but rather the carpenter’s son.
• Jesus is not described as “the son of Mary,” removing any social stigma that formulation might suggest.
• Jesus’ inability to perform deeds of power in his hometown is qualified, and the cause is laid on the unbelief of the Nazareth population.

Luke develops the story as a formal inauguration of Jesus’ mission, creating a story that has a role in his Gospel that parallels the role of the Pentecost legend in Acts:

• Luke’s Jesus is a rather more conventional character, whose “custom” was to attend Sabbath services in the local synagogue.
• This Jesus is literate, and functions as a respected synagogue member in taking his turn at reading the Scriptures.
• Here Jesus explicitly claims that the prophetic texts are being fulfilled in himself, right there that very day.
• Rather than being offended at his interpretation of the Scriptures, “all spoke well of him.”
• Jesus is identified as “Joseph’s son” and the low status occupation of carpenter (Gk: “teknon”) is expunged from the account.
• There is no mention of his mother, brothers or sisters.
• Jesus actually provokes his own rejection by an otherwise positive audience when he preempts any request for miracles and identifies his listeners with the recalcitrant Israelites from the times of Elijah and Elisha.
• Predictably, Luke then described a mob rampage that almost resulted in Jesus being thrown of a (non-existent) cliff in Nazareth except that by force of his own charisma he calmly walked through their midst and escaped the danger.

Central to all these accounts is the well-attested saying:

No prophet is welcome on his home turf;
doctors don’t cure those who know them.” [Complete Gospels]

This saying is known from Thomas, Mark, Luke and John and seems independent of this specific episode. It doubtless preserves a memory of Jesus’ personal experience of rejection by his own nation, whether not these words were actually spoken by him.

Crossan [Historical Jesus, 347] considers this “a statement of unbrokered egalitarianism coming from the historical Jesus and not just from Mark’s dislike of Peter.” He asks just what was the precise tension between Jesus and his hometown, his family and especially his brothers? The obvious response that these people did not believe in Jesus or accept his vision of God’s imperial rule is countered by their significant leadership roles within the early Christian movement after Jesus’ death. Instead, Crossan offers an alternative suggestion:

If Jesus was a well-known magician, healer, or miracle-worker, first, his immediate family, and, next, his village, would expect to benefit from and partake in the handling of that fame and those gifts. Any Mediterranean peasant would expect an expanding ripple of patronage-clientage to go out from Jesus, through his family and his village, to the outside world. But what Jesus did, in turning his back on Nazareth and on his family, was repudiate such brokerage, and that, rather than belief or disbelief, was the heart of the problem. The complex 22 Prophet’s Own Country [1/4] is simply Jesus’ own experience of what we already heard aphoristically in 74 Peace or Sword [1/2]. This antibrokerage activity is confirmed, finally, by the very well attested complex 10 Receiving the Sender [1/5].

For additional information about ancient Nazareth, see the following links:

• Nazareth Village (modern reconstruction of an ancient Galilean village)
• 1C Nazareth winepress excavations

The question of Jesus’ biological family has occupied scholars since early times. It is now usual to assume that the brothers and (unnamed) sisters mentioned in this episode were the natural children of Joseph and Mary, rather than step-children of Mary resulting from her marriage to Joseph (traditionally assumed to have been a widower with children of his own).

The exact significance of tekton (carpenter) is also unclear. It seems better to translate it in a more general sense like “construction worker” (Mahlon Smith) or “woodworker” (John P. Meier), than as carpenter. In any case, as Meier [A Marginal Jew, I;280] observes:

… in the whole of the NT, “woodworker” (tekton) is used only in Mark 6:3 and Matt 13:55, in the former text of Jesus and in the latter of Joseph. Hence the universally known “fact” that Jesus was a carpenter hangs by the thread of a half verse. Yet there is no cause for us to think that Mark 6:3 is inaccurate, especially since there was no reason why Mark or Christian preachers before him, should have gone out of their way to attribute to Jesus a calling that enjoyed no special prominence in his society, is never referred to in Jesus’ own teaching; and has absolutely no echo elsewhere in the doctrine of the NT.

Itinerant Missionaries

The description of Jesus sending out the Twelve in pairs as itinerant preachers and healers gives un insight into an important and characteristic aspect of earliest Christianity. Early Christianity was a missionary organization that fostered the movement of itinerant prophets between communities. These missionaries proclaimed the coming of the God’s empire, forgave sins, healed the sick, and presided at communal meals that fostered koinonia (common life).

The origins of this practice go back to Jesus’ own life as he moved around the villages of Galilee and Judea, rather than setting up a prophetic/healing ministry located at a specific place. Other charismatic holy men of the time tended to stay in their home location with others coming to them to seek a blessing. Instead, Jesus seems to have been an itinerant prophet of the Empire of God (always understood by his listeners as a sacred reality over against the other empire, Rome), and to have established a loose community of itinerant prophets that continued after his death.

• See 001 Mission and Message

The early Q community centered in the Galilee continued Jesus’ mission in his homeland. Converts such as Saul of Tarsus continued that same practice on a wider canvas, with Paul even planning a missionary journey to Spain. The Didache provides another window into this early Christianity in which pairs of missionaries, sometimes a male “apostle” and his female companion (the mysterious “sister-wife”), were still acknowledged as the original expression of the faith but were increasingly being displaced by resident pastors who remained with the local congregation rather than moving around.

The Didache is a text that gives instruction on how a Christian community should treat itinerant Christian prophets. It was written sometime in the late first or early second century and gives good evidence for a structured church’s shift in orientation away from spirit-possession. The Didache is written from the view point of a community leadership that distrusts, and yet respects, Christian prophets, one that wishes the prophets to leave town as quickly as possible, yet would have them welcomed in town when they arrive. The Pastoral and Petrine epistles stem from a slightly later time, when authority in the Christian movement was based on the prerogatives of office rather than on prophetic powers. [Stevan Davies, Jesus the Healer p. 175]

For an extensive and influential discussion of Jesus’ social program, under the rubric of the “brokerless kingdom,” see John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, pages 225-353.

There are also echoes of the Cynics whose lifestyle and social mission paralleled that of Jesus in many respects.

• More on the ancient Cynics

Jesus Database

• 022 Prophets Own Country – for vss 1-6a
• 230 Among the Villages – for vs 6b
• 001 Mission and Message – for vss 7-13

Liturgies and Prayers

For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site
Other recommended sites include:

• Iona Community
• Laughing Bird
• Lectionary & Liturgy Forum
• The Text This Week

Music Suggestions

See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

• Richard Bruxvoort-Colligan’s WorldMaking Music site
• David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site
• Brenton Prigge’s New Hymn site

Lectionary

• 2 Samuel 1:1, 17-27 and Psalm 130
• 2 Corinthians 8:7-15
• Mark 5:21-43

First Reading: 2 Samuel 1 – David laments the death of Saul and Jonathan

The RCL continues with its series of selection from the narratives of David’s rise to power and then the struggle over the succession.

In this case we have the formal transition of power from Saul to David, following the death of Saul in battle with the Philistines at Mt Gilboa:

Now the Philistines fought against Israel; and the men of Israel fled before the Philistines, and many fell on Mount Gilboa. The Philistines overtook Saul and his sons; and the Philistines killed Jonathan and Abinadab and Malchishua, the sons of Saul. The battle pressed hard upon Saul; the archers found him, and he was badly wounded by them. Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword and thrust me through with it, so that these uncircumcised may not come and thrust me through, and make sport of me.”€ But his armor-bearer was unwilling; for he was terrified. So Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. When his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword and died with him. So Saul and his three sons and his armor-bearer and all his men died together on the same day. When the men of Israel who were on the other side of the valley and those beyond the Jordan saw that the men of Israel had fled and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook their towns and fled; and the Philistines came and occupied them.
The next day, when the Philistines came to strip the dead, they found Saul and his three sons fallen on Mount Gilboa. They cut off his head, stripped off his armor, and sent messengers throughout the land of the Philistines to carry the good news to the houses of their idols and to the people. They put his armor in the temple of Astarte; and they fastened his body to the wall of Beth-shan. But when the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead heard what the Philistines had done to Saul, all the valiant men set out, traveled all night long, and took the body of Saul and the bodies of his sons from the wall of Beth-shan. They came to Jabesh and burned them there. Then they took their bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, and fasted seven days.
(1Sam 31:1-13 NRSV)

In the passage set for this Sunday we read selections from the continuing narrative as David hears about the death of Saul and, of more significance to David, his special friend, Jonathan. As often happens, the lectionary omits a section of the narrative – in this case those verses which tell of the killing of the messenger who brings the news of Saul’s death:

After the death of Saul, when David had returned from defeating the Amalekites, David remained two days in Ziklag. On the third day, a man came from Saul’s camp, with his clothes torn and dirt on his head. When he came to David, he fell to the ground and did obeisance. David said to him, “€œWhere have you come from?” He said to him, “€œI have escaped from the camp of Israel.”€ David said to him, “€œHow did things go? Tell me!” He answered, “€œThe army fled from the battle, but also many of the army fell and died; and Saul and his son Jonathan also died.”€ Then David asked the young man who was reporting to him, “€œHow do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan died?”€ The young man reporting to him said, “€œI happened to be on Mount Gilboa; and there was Saul leaning on his spear, while the chariots and the horsemen drew close to him. When he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. I answered, “€˜Here sir.” And he said to me, ‘Who are you?’ I answered him, ‘€˜I am an Amalekite.’€™ He said to me, ‘€˜Come, stand over me and kill me; for convulsions have seized me, and yet my life still lingers.’€™ So I stood over him, and killed him, for I knew that he could not live after he had fallen. I took the crown that was on his head and the armlet that was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord.”€
Then David took hold of his clothes and tore them; and all the men who were with him did the same. They mourned and wept, and fasted until evening for Saul and for his son Jonathan, and for the army of the LORD and for the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword. David said to the young man who had reported to him, “€œWhere do you come from?”€ He answered, “€œI am the son of a resident alien, an Amalekite.’” David said to him, “€œWere you not afraid to lift your hand to destroy the LORD’€™S anointed?” Then David called one of the young men and said, “€œCome here and strike him down.”€ So he struck him down and he died. David said to him, “Your blood be on your head; for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘€˜I have killed the LORD’€™S anointed.’”€™
(2Sam 1:2-16 NRSV)

A story such as this is offensive to contemporary sensitivities, and yet it is hardly an isolated incident in the biblical narratives. Other examples of such “texts of terror” (to use the phrase coined by Phyllis Tribble) are:

• Abraham’s willingness to offer Isaac as a human sacrifice
• massacre of the men of Shechem by the sons of Jacob (Gen 34)
• innocent civilian victims of the various plagues unleashed on Egypt (Exod 7-12), culminating in the death of the firstborn male of every family (including animals)
• slaughter of the Egyptian army – with all the horses (Exod 14-15)
• holy war against Amalekites for all time (Exodus 17:8-16)
• massacre of several thousand people by extremist clergy (Exod 32)
• destruction of the entire generation who escaped Egypt because they complained
• various plagues occasioning death when God was displeased by the people
• massacre of the people of Jericho (Joshua 6)
• sacrifice of the daughter of Jephthah (Judges 11)
• innocent deaths at the violent hands of Samson (Judges 13-16)
• murder and dismemberment of the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19)
• ritual murder of the Amalekite king by Samuel (1Sam 15)
• Elijah’s gratuitous killing of several groups of people (2Kings 1)

While we can appreciate the decision to omit 2Sam 1:2-16 from this week’s readings in communities gathered for worship, failure to confront such “texts of terror” within our sacred writings constitutes a significant blind spot within the Christian community. We need to acknowledge, address and reject the unworthy attitudes and actions attributed to God, or to various human agents on God’s behalf. Christians have often been critical of other religions for violence and yet our own tradition has sacred violence deeply embedded within it.
Deep questions of historicity surround all the biblical narratives involving David and other similar figures. For our purposes, it may suffice to note that the debate between so-called “maximalists” and “minimalists” continues, although neither side is now suggesting that there was a davidic empire of the proportions suggested by the biblical narrative:

• Historical David

Finally, there are questions concerning the nature of the intimate friendship between David and Jonathan. This relationship is elaborated in the second half of 1Samuel, but receives a poignant expression in the praise for Jonathan now found on the lips of David:

I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful,
passing the love of women. (2Sam 1:26)

For some recent discussion of the relationship between David and Jonathan for insights into same-sex relationships see:

• Peter F. Carnley, “€œFriendship” (Review) [1]
• Tom Horner, “Jonathan Loved David. Homosexuality in Biblical Times” [2]
• Peter Abelard (1079-1142): poem on David’s love for Jonathan [3]

See also:

• Jesus Now – Sex and Sexuality
• Sex Life of Jesus

(Alternative First Reading: The excerpt from the Wisdom of Solomon affirms the positive intention of God in creation. Death and disease are not the driving forces in our existence. As Marcus Borg notes in a passage cited below, holiness is not a fragile state that needs to be protected and preserved, but a positive reality that transforms and heals.)

Second Reading: 2Corinthians 8:7-15 – A Question of Fair Balance

For the second reading we have an example of Paul’s approach to Christian communities supporting one another in difficult times: a First-Century fund-raising brochure!

This is one of the few places where Paul appeals to the personal practice and example of Jesus. Mostly Paul appeals to the risen Lord, rather than to the words and actions of Jesus before Easter. Here we have Paul not only citing a tradition about Jesus, and one that represents Jesus rather differently than we might expect:

For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor,
so that by his poverty you might become rich. (2Cor 8:9)

In what sense was Jesus “rich”? What historical content can we suggest for the generosity that Paul attributes to Jesus?

Historical research suggests that Jesus is best located in the artisan class, and was hardly someone who could be described as rich or powerful. The appeal to some generosity on the part of Jesus may reflect an alternative tradition in which Jesus enjoyed a more privileged social location but freely surrendered that for the sake of others. Kathleen Corley (Women and the Historical Jesus) has argued that Jesus may have come from a well-connected family, and perhaps even one that owned (and could therefore support) slaves. There are also some traditions in the GJohn that could suggest Jesus had some influential family connections. For example, the presence of large stone jars at the wedding of Cana (John 2) suggests a wealthy context.

However, it is more likely that Paul is not citing the generous example of the historical Jesus (about whom he presumably knew almost nothing), but the mythic generosity of the pre-existent Christ whose voluntrary self-emptying (Gk: kenosis) is celebrated in the early Christian hymn quoted by Paul in Philippians:

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.

Therefore God also highly exalted him
and gave him the name
that is above every name,
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
(Phil 2:5-11 NRSV)

The assumptions about shared resources within the Kingdom communities that underlie Paul’s appeal for the Corinthians to support the Christians in Jerusalem may well be derived from Jesus’ own practice.

• 001 Mission and Message

The statement of principle found towards the end of the passsage is especially important for a Christian ethic of distributive justice:

I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance. As it is written,
“The one who had much did not have too much,
and the one who had little did not have too little.” (2Cor 8:13-15 NRSV)

The following article may be of interest:

• Jenks, “What did Paul know about Jesus?” The Fourth R 19/1 (1999) (PDF)

Gospel: Mark 5:21-43 – Jesus heals two women

As noted during the Epiphany season, when there were several healing episodes, Jesus was most likely considered a healer during his lifetime. From today’s perspective, Jesus’ cures are related to psychosomatic maladies. Jesus usually healed by the use of words alone; his cures were sometimes effected instantaneously. The Jewish scriptures provided generative models for constructing healing stories about Jesus as physician. Greco-Roman tales also served as models for the way that early Christians told their stories about Jesus as a healer.

In addition to the 6 reports of exorcisms attributed to Jesus – all outside John’s Gospel – 19 cures or resuscitations are attributed to Jesus in the earliest gospel traditions.

Crossan (Birth of Christianity, 293–304) discusses the distinction between diseases that require curing, and illnesses that require healing. Not all illness manifests itself in disease(s), but without attention to the illness patients will not consider themselves to have been healed, even if the physical and/or psychological malfunction of the disease is ameliorated.

In Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus, Borg cites the story of the healing of the woman with the vaginal bleeding in his discussion of holiness as transforming power:

… in the teachings of Jesus, holiness, not uncleanness, was understood to be contagious. Holiness—the power of the holy, of the sacred—was understood as a transforming power, not as a power that needed protection through rigorous separation. (p. 147)

[as with Jesus touching the leper] … the same transformation of the understanding of holiness underlies the account of the healing of the woman with a discharge in Mark 5:25-34. Her condition rendered her and all that she touched unclean (Lev. 15:25-30). Yet when she touched Jesus’ garment, it was not uncleanness that was transferred but rather “power went forth” from Jesus (5:30) and she was healed. (p. 148)

Such a positive view of holiness as a transforming power, something that cleanses and make whole any impurity or disease in us, challenges our present attitudes towards those living with HIV/AIDS.

Rather than seeing holiness as a fragile state easily threatened by contact with the unholy, this suggests a view of holiness as something so powerful and rubust that it transforms any unholiness with which it comes into contact. The parables of 035 The Mustard Seed and 104 The Leaven seem to be consistent with such a positive view of holiness (or, wholeness).

In Gospel of Mark (Scholars Bible), Daryl D. Schmidt reminds us that the terms “heal” and “save” are simply different tenses of the same Greek verb (a feature also observable in the English words “salve” and “salvage”).

The following articles may be of interest:

• Marcus Borg on Jesus as healer [4]
• Jesus as Healer

Jesus Database

• 229 Two Women Cured

Liturgies and Prayers

For liturgies and sermons each week, shaped by a progressive theology, check Rex Hunt’s web site

Other recommended sites include:

• Iona Community
• Laughing Bird
• The Text This Week

Music Suggestions

See the following sites for recommendations from a variety of contemporary genre:

• Richard Bruxvoort-Colligan’s WorldMaking Music site
• David MacGregor’s Together to Celebrate site
• Brenton Prigge’s New Hymn site