gregoryjenks

Tag: RCL

  • Pentecost 16B (16 September 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Proverbs 1:20-33 and Psalm 19 [alt. WisSol 7:26-8:1]
    • James 3:1-12
    • Mark 8:27-38

     

    Introduction

    This week’s readings draw on the ancient Wisdom tradition of the Bible and invite us to reflect on the significance of Jesus through the lens of Sophia, Lady Wisdom.

    First Reading: Lady Wisdom, the divine Sophia

    The passages from Proverbs and WisSol are classic texts from the wisdom tradition of ancient Judaism. In both cases we find wisdom personified as a woman—in Proverbs as a woman prophet, and in WisSol as an eternal spiritual reality that comes to historical expression in the prophets.

    For examples of the Sophia tradition in Jewish and Christian sources, see the following pages:

    Mark seems already to have bought into the Pauline understanding of Jesus as the powerful Son of God who offers his life as a ransom for others, but there were other ways to think of God present and active in human experience. The early 1C Jewish text, the Wisdom of Solomon, shows us that there were Jewish contemporaries of Jesus and Paul who imagined God coming among us as Lady Sophia, the Divine Wisdom.

    For she is a reflection of eternal light,
    a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness.
    Although she is but one, she can do all things,
    and while remaining in herself, she renews all things;
    in every generation she passes into holy souls
    and makes them friends of God, and prophets;
    for God loves nothing so much as the person who lives with wisdom.
    She is more beautiful than the sun,
    and excels every constellation of the stars.
    Compared with the light she is found to be superior,
    for it is succeeded by the night,
    but against wisdom evil does not prevail.
    She reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other,
    and she orders all things well. [WisSol 7:26-8:1]

    As this week’s Gospel invites us to ask ourselves the ancient question (“Who is Jesus?”) all over again, we may find that some of the less familiar voices in the biblical tradition offer helpful insights for us today. Even if time makes ancient truth uncouth, as the hymn writer predicted, we may still find that the storehouse of faith has other treasures that have been lying unappreciated for generations.

    Sophia Christology may be one of those treasures old and new that the scribe trained for God’s Kingdom will know when to bring out from the storehouse (Matt 13:52).

    The song Enemy of Apathy by John Bell and Graham Maule from the Iona Community is one modern expression of this ancient biblical tradition:

    She sits like a bird, brooding on the waters,
    hovering on the chaos of the world’s first day;
    she sighs and she sings, mothering creation,
    waiting to give birth to all the Word will say.

    She wings over earth, resting where she wishes,
    lighting close at hand or soaring through the skies;
    she nests in the womb, welcoming each wonder,
    nourishing potential hidden to our eyes.

    She dances in fire, startling her spectators,
    waking tongues of ecstasy where dumbness reigned;
    she weans and inspires all whose hearts are open,
    nor can she be captured, silenced or restrained,

    For she is the Spirit, one with God in essence,
    gifted by the Saviour in eternal love;
    she is the key opening the scriptures,
    enemy of apathy and heavenly dove.

     

    Second Reading: Wisdom beyond doctrine

    The reading from James offers an example of the generic spiritual wisdom that characterizes the ancient Wisdom literature.

    Typically, biblical Wisdom writings are the least “religious” texts in the Bible. There is little reference to God, no interest in the covenant, and not much time for the arcane traditions of the Temple. The sage looks to nature and to daily life—in the home, in the work place, and in society—for inspiration and insight.

    Interestingly, Jesus himself seems rarely to have looked to Scripture and instead to have drawn on his observations of people in everyday life: a man building a tower, a farmer sowing the seed, a woman searching for a lost coin, etc. The episodes that portray Jesus as citing the Scriptures or engaged debate over their meaning are precisely the texts that seem to have been produced by the later Christian tradition, and they often construct a Jesus who is a moralist rather than a radical sage.

    A texts such as James 3:1-12 could be used in almost any religious tradition. It is a reminder that the great religions have much in common, even if we mostly define them by their distinctive hallmarks. Anthologies such as Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings (edited by Marcus Borg), or the bestseller Living Buddha, Living Christ (by Thich Nhat Hanh) help us recapture an appreciation of the wisdom all the great religions offer.

    None of which excuses us from facing the existential questions posed in this week’s Gospel:

    • Who is Jesus?
    • What do others say about him?
    • What do we say about him?
    • What do I say about him?
    • Who is Jesus for me?
    • Who am I for Jesus?

     

    Gospel: Who is this man?

    The Gospel passage for this week is widely seen by scholars as the turning point in Mark’s Gospel. There is much more going on here than the record of a historical memory. Mark has carefully set the scene for this episode, although we miss his literary craft with our lectionary fragments week by week.

    Before looking at the immediate context, it is worth noting the larger design of Mark’s Gospel:

    Mark has two major divisions: 1:1-8:26 and 8:27-16:8. We find no use of the word “Christ” apart from the title line in 1:1 until we get to the second half of the book. “Christ” then occurs several times, starting at 8:30. The first half has a focus on Jesus and the public, while the second half has a focus on Jesus and the disciples. in the first half of the book we find repeated questions about the identity of this man, while the second half offers repeated instruction on Jesus’ identity. In the first half we have many miracles (15), but just a few (3) in the second half. The earlier section hints at Jesus’ death, but the second section has a sustained focus on Jesus’ death. [see Chapman, The Orphan Gospel. 1993:39]

    Mark has set the stage for this disclosure scene with a double set of stories:

    There were two sets of miracles –

    1a – Jesus rebukes the wind and sea (4:35-42)
    2a – Jesus heals the demoniac at Gerasa (5:1-20)
    3a – Jesus cures Jairus’ daughter (5:21-24a,35-43)
    4a – Jesus heals the woman with the vaginal hemorrhage (5:24b-34)
    5a – Feeding of the 5,000 (6:30-44)

    1b – Jesus walks on the sea (6:47-52)
    2b – Jesus cures a blind man (8:22-26)
    3b – Jesus cures the Greek woman’s daughter (7:24b-30)
    4b – Jesus cures a deaf-mute (7:31-37)
    5b – Feeding of the 4,000 (8:1-9)

    There may also be a connection between this week’s episode and two additional healing stories that feature blind people –

    • Mark 8:22-26 – Blind man healed
    • Mark 10:46-52 – Blind Bartimaeus healed

    These stories frame an important section on discipleship in Mark’s narrative of Jesus.

    The first of the blind persons to be healed can only see clearly after a struggle. Jesus’ initial efforts to heal him were only partly successful. The man had gained fuzzy sight (“I can see people, but they look like trees, walking.”) It took a second attempt by Jesus before the man was able to see clearly.

    The second blind person, Bartimaeus, regains his sight immediately. Unlike the others who Jesus healed and sent home with instructions to keep silent, Bartimaeus regains his sight and follows Jesus “in the way”—the way of the cross, a story that begins in the very next sentence.

    This week’s Gospel comes directly after the healing of the first blind man. It shows the disciples glimpsing—with a rather fuzzy vision—something of the significance of Jesus but not quite getting it. They saw a sacred hero, but were not clear about just what kind of hero this might be. They begin by rubbing their eyes and straining to make sense of what they think they can see.

    By the end of the extended reflection on discipleship (8:31-10:52), the disciples seem to have gained a clarity of vision. They are found with Jesus in Jerusalem as his destiny comes to pass.

    There may not be much of the historical Jesus in this week’s episode. Jesus seems not to have gone around speaking of himself and requesting feedback from others about how they saw him. But this story does capture the deep historical truth that his living and dying presented people with a demand that they decide what to make of a person who could live and die like this. Jesus may not have asked, “Who do people say that I am?” But his followers certainly found themselves asking, “Who is this?” and “What difference does this man make in my life?”

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

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

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

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

  • Pentecost 15B (9 September 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Proverbs 22:1-2, 8-9, 22-23 & Psalm 125
    • James 2:1-10, (11-13), 14-17
    • Mark 7:24-37

     

    Introduction

    This week’s readings continue the exploration of biblical Wisdom writings and invite us to move beyond our comfort zones to the surprising places where true insight is to be found (and practised).

     

    First Reading: Rich and poor have this in common

    The passage from Proverbs presents us with some of ancient Israel’s collective wisdom on the relations between the rich and poor. The ultimate dignity of both derives from their common status as creatures: “the LORD is the maker of them all.” Generosity is a virtue, but the poor have a right not to be exploited. Ultimately, God was understood to have a particular interest in the poor.

     

    Second Reading: A bias to the poor

    There is a provocative convergence between the Jesus who encounters a pagan woman or uses saliva to heal a deaf-mute, and the text of James that challenges our comfort zones among people of similar social status to ourselves. James comes from a Christian experience that is more familiar with poverty and less accustomed to power.

    Most of us are properly described as “a person with gold rings and in fine clothes.”

    Would we choose to be disciples of the Jewish magician with muddy fingers if it also cost us our lifestyle? Are we genuinely able to make welcome someone whose poverty incarnates our own fears of what we might become?

    Are we able to voice the beatitude of Jesus: Blessed are the poor?

     

    Gospel: Jesus and the Lebanese woman

    Like the modern lectionaries, not all ancient Gospel writers chose to use this story. Luke omits the story (along with several other stories found in Mark/Matthew) as part of his major deviation from the dominant Synoptic order. This so-called “Great Omission” by Luke excluded the following material from his account of Jesus:

    • Mark 6:45-46 = Matt 14:22-23 Departures after 5,000 fed
    • Mark 6:47-52 = Matt 14:24-33 Walking on the Sea
    • Mark 6:53-56 = Matt 14:34-36 Many sick cured
    • Mark 7:1-13 = Matt 15:1-9 Eating with defiled hands
    • Mark 7:14-23 = Matt 15:10-20 Explanations in private
    • Mark 7:24-30 = Matt 15:21-28 Greek woman’s daughter
    • Mark 7:31-37 = ?Matt 15:29-31 Deaf-mute healed
    • Mark 8:1-10 = Matt 15:32-39 Bread and fish for 4,000
    • Mark 8:11-13 = Matt 16:1-4 Demand for a sign
    • Mark 8:14-21 = Matt 16:5-12 Bread and leaven
    • Mark 8:22-26 Blind man healed

     

    It is not clear what Luke’s reason for omitting this week’s story may have been.

    • Was he offended by the picture of a xenophobic Jesus needing a master class in Kingdom values from a pagan woman?
    • Was it simply part of a section of Mark that Luke chose to delete in order to create his own “orderly account” arranged around different themes?

    The story itself puzzles the modern reader, and may have also challenged the ancient Gospel writers. Luke omits it, while Matthew adapts the story in some significant ways. (For details see the horizontal line synopsis in the Jesus Database site.)

    The general effect of Matthew’s changes is to improve the story so that Jesus is treated with more respect. The woman (now described as a Canaanite) uses proper Jewish categories (Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David). It is the disciples who seek to drive her away. Jesus acknowledges her great faith (unlike the disciples with their little faith, eg Matt 14:31; 16:8; 17:20) and the healing of the daughter is instantaneous.

    Note how the story is set in southern Lebanon – the territory of Tyre, south of the Litani River. Jesus has left Galilee and travelled to the coastal city of Tyre for some respite from the pressures of his ministry. He finds – or knows of – a “safe house” where he can escape the glare of publicity. But word gets out and a local woman with a desperately ill daughter seeks his assistance.

    The core of the story concerns an encounter with a pagan woman whose needs challenge his own assumptions about the extent of God’s love and his own obligations to people beyond his own community. While it dealt with an issue of great concern to the emerging Christian community after Jesus’ death, it portrays Jesus as someone needing to expand the boundaries of his own spiritual imagination. Even Jesus, it seems, had something to learn by welcoming and listening to the Gentiles. As such it seems unlikely to have been created by the early Christian story tellers. Like the brute fact that Jesus had begun as a disciple of John the Baptist, here was a story that either had to be suppressed (Luke? John?) or embraced.

    • This story offers us an opportunity to expand our spiritual imaginations as well?
    • How do we cope with a Jesus who is a life-long learner (to use modern educational jargon), rather than someone with all the answers in advance of the test?
    • Who are the “strangers” that challenge our convenient assumptions about the limits to our compassion? Is there anyone who can be imagined as beyond the scope of God’s justice?

     

    Jesus heals a deaf man with a speech impediment

    This week’s lectionary also uses the story of Jesus healing a deaf man with a speech impediment. This is a story found only in Mark, although Matthew may have created a summary passage (Matt 15:29-31) partly on the basis of Mark’s story.

    John P. Meier comments on this unusual healing story:

    … there are indications that we are dealing here not with pure creation by Mark but with some tradition Mark has inherited. An initial signal is the significant number of words in the seven verses of this miracle story that never occur anywhere else in Mark’s Gospel. Then there are the unusual, even bizarre, elements in the narrative that make it stand out from the ordinary pattern of miracle stories in the Gospels in general and in Mark in particular. Specifically, the healing of the deaf-mute, perhaps even more than the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida, is replete with ritual or symbolic actions of Jesus that could be interpreted as magic. This may explain why this story and the healing at Bethsaida are the only two Marcan miracles that are omitted by both Matthew and Luke.
    Jesus’ ritual-like gestures include (1) putting his fingers into the man’s ears (symbolic of opening them so that the man can hear), (2) placing his own saliva on the man’s tongue (symbolic of loosing the “bond” of the tongue so that the man can speak, (3) looking up to heaven (probably some gesture of prayer), (4) sighing or groaning deeply (estenaxen, seen by some as expressing the inner “arousal” of the charismatic’s miracle-working powers), and (5) the command “be opened” (given by Mark both in the Aramaic ephphatha and in Greek translation. [Marginal Jew II,711-14]

    Jesus as charismatic healer and exorcist is not a familiar image to many Western Christians, although such an image would find a welcome in the life of a Pentecostal mission church and maybe in an African Anglican congregation.

    The Jesus celebrated in this strange little story was perhaps too much into “magic” for Matthew and Luke. The charge that Jesus was a sorcerer and a magician was something they felt a need to guard against, writing some time later than Mark.

    John Dominic Crossan has an interesting discussion of magic as “religious banditry” in his Historical Jesus, ch13. He writes at one point:

    … magic is to religion as banditry is to politics. As banditry challenges the legitimacy of political power, so magic challenges that of spiritual power. Magic and religion can be mutually distinguished, in the ancient world or in the modern one, by political and prescriptive definitions but not by substantive, descriptive, or neutral descriptions. Religion is official and approved magic; magic is unofficial and unapproved religion. The question is not whether magicians are for or against official religion. Their very existence, totally apart from such intentions, is a challenge to its validity and exclusivity. [p. 305]

    Warming to his theme, Crossan continues:

    Because of magic’s position as subversive, unofficial, unapproved, and often lower-class religion, I have deliberately used the word magic rather than some euphemism in the preceding and present parts of this book. Elijah and Elisha, Honi and Hanina, were magicians, and so was Jesus of Nazareth. It is endlessly fascinating to watch Christian theologians describe Jesus as miracle worker rather than magician and then attempt to define the substantive difference between those two.

    Both this story and the earlier episode with the Lebanese woman present us with unfamiliar sketches of Jesus. This is not the Lord of eternity, the one who knows what is in the human heart, and who calmly commits his mother into the care of another man before his own death confident of exaltation back to heaven. Instead, we catch a glimpse of a strange and somewhat frightening Galilean holy man. Is this the human face of God for us? Do we prefer a face that is more like our own? A figure less likely to stand out from the crowd on the sidewalk?

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

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

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

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

  • Pentecost 14B (02 September 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • Song of Solomon 2:8-13 and Psalm 45:1-2, 6-9
    • James 1:17-27
    • Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23

     

    Introduction

    In some ways, this week represents a transition in the Sunday lections:

    • We begin a series from the ancient Jewish Wisdom writings
    • We begin a series from James, a classic Christian “wisdom” text
    • We return to Mark, the default Gospel for Year B

     

    First Reading: Song of Solomon

    After a lengthy series in the prophetic historical narratives of Samuel and Kings (material known as the “Former Prophets” in the Hebrew Bible), the RCL now begins a series of weeks during which the OT reading is drawn from the wisdom literature of ancient Israel:

    • SongSol 2:8-13
    • Prov 22:1-2,8-9,22-23
    • WisSol 7:26-8:1 (or, Prov 1:20-33)
    • Prov 31:10-31
    • Esther 7:1-6,9-10; 9:20-22
    • Job 1:1; 2:1-10
    • Job 23:1-9,16-17
    • Job 38:1-7,(34-41)
    • Job 42:1-6,10-17
    • Ruth 1:1-18
    • Ruth 3:1-5; 4:13-17
    • 1 Samuel 1:4-20

    While Esther, Ruth and the story of Hannah (1Sam 1) are not strictly “wisdom texts,” they do portray women as significant characters and active agents of God’s Wisdom.
    The Song of Solomon is one of several wisdom texts attributed to Solomon by later authors.

    Within the Hebrew Bible:

    • Proverbs
    • Ecclesiastes, or Qoheleth
    • Song of Solomon, or Song of Songs, or Canticles

    In the Greek Bible (LXX):

    • Wisdom of Solomon

    Among the Old Testament Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha:

    • Odes of Solomon
    • Psalms of Solomon

    The Song of Solomon is a joyful affirmation of sexual love, and its inclusion in the canon has proved something of an embarrassment to pious readers. As it fails to mention God even once, its place in the canon was challenged in ancient times. Traditional Jewish and Christian exegesis has understood this erotic poem as an allegory of the divine love for Israel or the Church, but more recently commentators have accepted the plain sense of the text.

    Michael V. Fox [HarperCollins Bible Commentary] observes:

    The present commentary reads the Song of Songs as a secular poem about unmarried, human lovers. Such a song would originally have been sung for entertainment (a use that Rabbi Akiva mentions, and deplores, in the second century A.D.). Only in the course of long use was it reinterpreted as a religious document and included in the biblical canon. The Song of Songs is a celebration of private human experience. It treasures adolescent love and does not seek to infuse a “greater” meaning into this joyous experience. It does not even use the opportunity to extol, or appeal for, the blessings of procreation, family, and prosperity. Love is its own justification. [p. 472]

    The excerpt chosen for use this week centers around a night time visit to the woman by her lover. Here, as in other parts of the Song, the lovers are assumed to be equal partners in the relationship:

    The couple’s relationship is strikingly egalitarian, as if bracketed out for the moment from the assumptions of a patriarchal society. Though social constraints restrict the girl more than the boy, within the one-to-one relationship their possession is mutual (2:16), their desires indistinguishable, and their description of each other of much the same sort. This is an idealization of love, but not one devoid of roots in private experience. [Fox, 472f]

    Those patriarchal assumptions are paraded in the designated psalm portion. Psalm 45 is most likely a royal wedding song, and it celebrates without any sense of shame the militarism, corruption and exploitation that was endemic in such societies. The following verses are excised from the text read in services, but they reveal the dominant social values of the biblical world:

    Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one, in your glory and majesty.
    In your majesty ride on victoriously for the cause of truth and to defend the right;
    let your right hand teach you dread deeds.
    Your arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; the peoples fall under you.
    Hear, O daughter, consider and incline your ear; forget your people and your father’s house,
    and the king will desire your beauty. Since he is your lord, bow to him;
    the people of Tyre will seek your favor with gifts, the richest of the people45:13 with all kinds of wealth.
    The princess is decked in her chamber with gold-woven robes;
    in many-colored robes she is led to the king; behind her the virgins, her companions, follow.
    With joy and gladness they are led along as they enter the palace of the king.

    Torah as Identity and Mission

    The passage from Deuteronomy 4, listed as an alternative in the RCL this week, comes from another of the major deuteronomistic speeches mentioned last week in connection with Joshua 24.

    In this case, we have an appeal for Torah observance placed on the lips of Moses.

    The faith that is expressed in this literary fiction is one centered around Torah. In this 7C BCE document we can see the emerging self-identity of “Israel” (in fact, more properly “Judah” centered on Jerusalem) as a moral community rather than simply a political entity. At least that is the case being argued by the prophetic reformers whose agenda was being advanced by the production of the Deuteronomic History running from Deuteronomy through Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings.

    Here are religious leaders with a vision for a society that builds a reputation for wisdom and discernment, rather than military prowess or mercantile success. Their community identity and also their collective mission derived from this sense of faithfulness to the divine Torah.

    In the designated psalm portion (Ps 15), we catch a glimpse of another expression of Torah observance.

    Jacob Neusner cites a much later example of Judaism’s ongoing reflection on the meaning of Torah:

    Six hundred and thirteen commandments were given to Moses, three hundred and sixty-five negative ones, corresponding to the days of the solar year, and two hundred forty-eight positive commandments, corresponding to the parts of man’s body…

    David came and reduced them to eleven: A Psalm of David [Psalm 15] Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tabernacle, and who shall dwell in thy holy mountain? (i) He who walks uprightly and (ii) works righteousness and (iii) speaks truth in his heart and (iv) has no slander on his tongue and (v) does no evil to his fellow and (vi) does not take up a reproach against his neighbour, (vii) in whose eyes a vile person is despised but (viii) honors those who fear the Lord. (ix) He swears to his own hurt and changes not. (x) He does not lend on interest. (xi) He does not take a bribe against the innocent, …

    Isaiah came and reduced them to six [Isaiah 33:25–26]: (i) He who walks righteously and (ii) speaks uprightly, (iii) he who despises the gain of oppressions, (iv) shakes his hand from holding bribes, (v) stops his ear from hearing of blood (vi) and shuts his eyes from looking on evil, he shall dwell on high.

    Micah came and reduced them to three [Micah 6:8]: It has been told you, man, what is good and what the Lord demands from you, (i) only to do justly, and (ii) to love mercy, and (iii) to walk humbly before God …

    Isaiah came again and reduced them to two [Isaiah 56:1]: Thus says the Lord, (i) keep justice and (ii) do righteousness.

    Amos came and reduced them to a single one, as it is said, For thus says the Lord to the house of Israel, Seek Me and live.

    Habakkuk further came and based them on one, as it is said [Habakkuk 2:4], But the righteous shall live by his faith.

    — Talmud, b. Makkot, 24(a) [cited in Jacob Neusner, The Way of Torah, 22]

     

    Second Reading: Christian wisdom

    The letter of James is a distinctive voice from the first generation of Christianity. It claims to have been written by the brother of Jesus. At the very least, James represents a way of being Christian that is less driven by the emerging christologies of the Cross (as in Paul) or Divine Wisdom (John). Here is a 1C Christian community that understands its link to Jesus as being through the family of Jesus and which preserves a particularly practical expression of faith in which right action takes precedence over correct doctrine.

    Luke T. Johnson, author of a recent commentary on James (Anchor Bible, Volume 37a. 1995), characterizes the book as follows:

    The teaching of James is general rather than particular, traditional rather than novel, moral rather than theological. The goal of the writing is not so much right thinking as right acting. The fundamental contrast is between verbal profession and action; when James contrasts “faith” and “works” (2:14), he sets empty belief in opposition to lived practice. [HarperCollins Commentary, 1162]

    Given the current RCL focus on texts from ancient Israel’s wisdom tradition, James’ affinities with the tradition are also noteworthy:

    James is remarkable for its positive appropriation of Torah, whose separate aspects it mediates to the messianic community. The short exhortations concerned with practical behavior resemble and incorporate elements of the wisdom tradition, reaching from Hellenistic moral philosophy to the biblical books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. … James also affirms the law, calling it the “law of liberty” (2:12), which is summarized by the Decalogue and the “law of love” (Lev 19:18. cf. 2:8-11). James elaborates this commandment in the light of Lev. 19:11-19 and Jesus’ words. [Johnson, ibid]

    James might be expected to serve as a window into the earliest Jesus traditions, even if it is not actually the work of Jesus’ own brother. There do seem to be a number of ways in which this work reflects some knowledge of the sayings and practices of Jesus.

    • Ask for what is needed, since God is generous and ungrudging. (Matt 7:7-11) [Jas 1:5-6]
    • The lowly raised up, and the rich brought low (Matt 20:16) [Jas 1:9-10]
    • Criticism of the rich [Jas 1:10-11; 5:1-6]
    • Use of Beatitudes [Jas 1:12]
    • Deliverance from temptation (Matt 6:13a) [Jas 1:12-16]
    • Use of Parables [Jas 1:22-26; 3:2-6]
    • Blessed for Doing (John 13:17) [Jas 1:25]
    • Blessed are the poor (Matt 5:3) [Jas 2:2-7]
    • Keeping the commandments (Mark 12:28-34) [Jas 2:8-12]
    • Unforgiving servant (Matt 18:23-35) [Jas 2:13]
    • Practical charity (Matt 25:31-46) [Jas 2:14-17]
    • By their fruit (Matt 7:16-20) [Jas 3:11-12]
    • On Judging (Matt 7:1-2a) [Jas 4:11-12]
    • On Anxieties (Matt 6:25-34) [Jas 4:13-15]
    • On Oaths (Matt 5:33-370 [Jas 5:12]
    • Healing and Forgiveness (Matt 10:1,7-8) [Jas 5:13-18]
    • Scold and Forgive (Matt 18:15) [Jas 5:19-20]

    Even if some of these items derive from the post-Easter community, this list indicates a significant focus on traditions associated with Jesus.

    Gospel: Jesus and the purity codes

    The Gospel for all three major lectionaries deals with excerpts from Mark 7:1-23, a complex tradition that preserves a memory of Jesus as someone who intentionally contravened the purity requirements of his own society and advocated a radical reinterpretation of purity to apply to internal dispositions rather than external observance.

    The following comments come from Marcus Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. (Trinity Press International, 1998):

    … one of the consequences of the Pharisaic extension of priestly regulations to nonpriests was the insistence that hands be washed before even ordinary meals. At issue here, of course, was not hygiene but holiness. According to both Mark and Q (or Luke), Jesus and his disciples were charged with eating with unwashed hands. Both sources indicate deliberate nonobservance and give no reason to suggest that the behavior was necessitated by special circumstances.

    To determine the response of Jesus to this accusation, the complexities of Mark 7:1-23 must serve as a point of departure. As it stands in Mark, it begins with the accusation regarding washing of hands and climaxes with v. 15:

    There is nothing outside of a person which by going into that person can defile;
    but the things which come out of a person are what defile.

    There is virtual unanimity among all schools of criticism that this saying is authentic. The major issue is the meaning of the saying. To what did it refer when Jesus spoke it? Since it was spoken to some concrete situation involving controversy with opponents, its primary thrust is to be determined by that controversy rather than in isolation.

    In Mark, it has two different thrusts to two different audiences. in public (v. 14), it answered the Pharisaic charge that Jesus’ disciples ate with unwashed hands. In private (vv. 17-23), to the disciples, it nullified the Mosaic laws on clean and unclean foods (Deut. 14:3-20; Lev. 11), most explicitly in v. 19b: “Thus he declared all foods clean.”

    That the second thrust is authentic is unlikely for several reasons. First, there is no indication elsewhere that this was an issue during the ministry. Indeed, had Jesus rejected the food laws of the Pentateuch, most likely an accusation to that effect would have been made and preserved, but no such accusation is reported. Though this is an argument from silence, it has some force since accusations about sabbath observance, washing of hands, eating with tax collectors and sinners, etc., do appear. Of greater weight is a second reason: the indecision of the early Jesus movement after Jesus’ death over the continued validity of the Mosaic laws on forbidden foods is virtually inexplicable if Jesus had unambiguously rejected the distinction between clean and unclean foods. Moreover, v. 19b, which is responsible for directing the saying to the question of forbidden foods is in a section (vv. 17-23) commonly viewed as secondary …

    Two possibilities remain: it was addressed to a conflict which can no longer with certainty be identified, or it was directed to the issue of ritual purity of hands at meals. The first is certainly possible, though the second is more probable for two reasons. Concern about ritual purity of hands is a known controversy; and Luke independently of Mark reports a Q saying with similar content as a reply to the same accusation:

    Luke 11:38-41: The Pharisee noticed with surprise that Jesus had not begun by washing before the meal. But the Lord said to him, “You Pharisees! You clean the outside of the cup and plate; but inside you there is nothing but greed and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside too? But cleanse those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you.”

    … Taken together, the accusations and replies reported by Mark and Luke lead to very important conclusions. First, the behavior against which the accusations were directed contravened an important aspect of the extension of priestly regulations to daily life: it denied the validity of one of the main requirements for membership in a Pharisaic havurah. Second, the warrant given for the contravention called into question and indeed negated the whole notion of how holiness was to be achieved. The equation between holiness and separation, qadosh and parush, was denied, for holiness had nothing to do with separation from the external sources of defilement … Denying the equation of qadosh and parush constituted an eminently clear opposition to the main thrust of Pharisaic polity and indeed to much of the postexilic development of Judaism.

    The historic meaning of the challenge can be refined by comparing it to two modern ways of stating the significance of Mark 7:15, both of which blunt the cultural and political edge of the controversy. Perrin and Kasemann, both of whom appreciate the radical nature of the saying, argue that here Jesus established the distinction between the sacred and the secular. Though this may finally be quite similar to what is argued above, putting the issue in the form, “Jesus denied the equation of holiness and separation,” has the advantage of being cast in the form of a cultural question of the day. Its historical bite as a challenge to the Pharisaic program for Israel can be better appreciated. Its controversial setting is more seriously obscured by a second modern way of stating the point: Jesus replaces the concern about external rectitude with a concern about the inner spiritual health of the individual. Though this is a valid insight, it both generalizes and individualizes what was originally a specific challenge to a collective model of behavior for a society.

    Here, then, in the behavior of Jesus and his disciples, we have a specific contravention of a necessary prerequisite for table fellowship as understood by the Pharisees, and of a major element in the program to make Israel a kingdom of priests. Moreover, the warrant which Jesus articulated for such nonobservance denied not only the necessity of ritual washing of hands, but also undercut the understanding of holiness as a separation upon which hinged Israel’s course in the present and anticipation of the future. [pp. 111-13]

     

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

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

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

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

  • Pentecost 13B (26 August 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • I Kings 8:(1,6,10-11),22-30,41-43 & Psalm 84 (or Joshua 24:1-2a, 14-18 & Psalm 34:15-22)
    • Ephesians 6:10-20
    • John 6:56-69

     

    Introduction

    It may be helpful to think of these readings as each engaging in some way with the theme of taking sides:

    • 1 Kings 8: God takes up residence in Jerusalem’s Temple
    • Joshua 24: Israel renews its loyalty to God under the covenant
    • Ephesians 6: Faith as a struggle against the cosmic powers
    • John 6: Division between Jesus’ disciples over his meaning

     

    First Reading: Solomon dedicates the Temple

    The prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem provides an opportunity for the prophetic story teller to articulate some key themes of the Deuteronomistic reformation that is described in 2 Kings 22-23. This prayer is one of several speeches that provided the narrator with strategic opportunities to present the theological framework for the unfolding story.
    Other speeches composed by the so-called Deuteronomist and placed on the lips of key characters include:

    • Moses (Deut 1:1-4:43) – historical review and a call to Torah obedience
    • Moses (Deut 6:1-11:32) – sermon as prelude to the recital of the Torah (chs 12-26)
    • Moses (Deut 31:30-32:43) – the “Song of Moses”
    • Moses (Deut 33:1-29) – the Blessing of Moses
    • Joshua (Josh 24:1-15) – Covenant renewal ceremony speech
    • Samuel (1Sam 12:1-25) – Samuel’s speech at the coronation of Saul
    • Nathan (2Sam 7:1-29) – Nathan’s oracle about the House of David

    This literary device is also found in other biblical books with lengthy prayers and speeches attributed to such characters as:

    • Ezra (Neh 9:6-37)
    • Daniel (Dan 9:1-19)

    and various figures in Luke-Acts:

    • Jesus (Luke 4)
    • Peter (Acts 2 & 10-11)
    • Stephen (Acts 7)
    • James (Acts 15)
    • Paul (Acts 13, 17, 20, 22, 24 & 26)

    The prayer of Solomon is a fiction created by the narrator to communicate important theological concerns of the time when Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings were being created as a prophetic recital of the story of Israel/Judah. The theme of covenant faithfulness was central to their concerns, with each king being assessed according to his loyalty to the beliefs and values of the prophetic circles driving the reform movement in the time of Josiah (640-609 BCE).

    This reformation is known as the deuteronomistic movement because its ideas are given classical expression in the book of Deuteronomy, some portion of which may have been the “book of the Torah” found in the Jerusalem Temple during its refurbishment during the reign of Josiah:

    The high priest Hilkiah said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD.” When Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, he read it. Then Shaphan the secretary came to the king, and reported to the king, “Your servants have emptied out the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of the workers who have oversight of the house of the LORD.” Shaphan the secretary informed the king, “The priest Hilkiah has given me a book.” Shaphan then read it aloud to the king. When the king heard the words of the book of the law, he tore his clothes. Then the king commanded the priest Hilkiah, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Achbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary, and the king’s servant Asaiah, saying, “Go, inquire of the LORD for me, for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our ancestors did not obey the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.” [2Kings 22:8-13]

    As that story itself indicates, the Temple in Jerusalem played an important role in the history of the Jewish people. Destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BCE, its reconstruction (albeit on a more modest scale) was one of the first priorities of the post-exilic community under the leadership of prophets like Haggai and Zechariah. Centuries later, Herod the Great would seek to cultivate popular support by a grand scheme to refurbish and enlarge the Temple. That also served as a major work creation program as the project lasted many decades. The recent completion of the Herodian Temple, and its success in attracting vast wealth from pious Jews around the Roman Empire, may have been a factor in the Jewish uprising in 66 CE. Four years later the Temple again lay in ruins. In modern Israel, the dream of rebuilding the Temple is again a focus for fanatical Jewish nationalists and a visit to the Temple Mount site in late 2001 by the then Opposition Leader, Ariel Sharon, triggered the second Palestinian uprising (intifada).

    Pictures and historical notes on the Temple Mount site
    Psalm 122 evokes a timeless sense of the significance of the city and its Temple, while invoking peace on all who love her:

    I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the LORD!”
    Our feet are standing within your gates, O Jerusalem.
    Jerusalem–built as a city that is bound firmly together.
    To it the tribes go up, the tribes of the LORD,
    as was decreed for Israel, to give thanks to the name of the LORD.
    For there the thrones for judgment were set up, the thrones of the house of David.
    Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: “May they prosper who love you.
    Peace be within your walls, and security within your towers.”
    For the sake of my relatives and friends I will say, “Peace be within you.”
    For the sake of the house of the LORD our God, I will seek your good.

    Joshua renews the Covenant

    As already mentioned, the stirring speech by Joshua is another literary device fashioned by the Deuteronomist. These anonymous prophets of the biblical past are the unsung heroes of our spiritual tradition. They created a way of seeing the past that shaped their present and gave it a future. They did this so well that their story has become our story, even when we find ourselves dissenting from its narrow ethnic focus or pressing a wider vision of God’s justice for women, the poor, or homosexuals.

    We acknowledge – but do not explicitly address in this week’s notes – the historical and ethical problems bound up in these canonical texts.

    What we find expressed in this ancient legend of a covenant ceremony led by Joshua after the bloody conquest of Canaan is a prophetic glimpse of a different social order than one where power is concentrated in the hands of a ruler and his immediate retainers. This elite view of power holds sway in the corporate board room as much as in the royal palace.

    Israel’s Scriptures preserve another perspective. For the prophets, the “efficiency” of a king could only be tolerated if the “powers that be” were subservient to the values of the covenant. In that older covenant tradition, the obligations and the blessings extended to all the members of the community; not just to the king. This prophetic tradition has been for the most part the way less traveled, as men of religion seem to prefer to imagine God’s dealings with humanity as a secret deal giving privileges to the powerful.

    Can we recapture something of the collective identity that sees our destiny as bound up with one another? Can we say like Joshua, “As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord?” Can we enlarge our vision of “household” to include all humanity, and even the planet as a whole?

    Second Reading: Engaged in a Cosmic Conflict

    This passage concludes the series of readings from Ephesians.

    The selection develops the theme of a cosmic struggle between good and evil, now expressed in terms that seem more at home in a Gnostic document but also with parallels in authentic Pauline passages such as Rom 8:37-39:

    For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers,
    nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
    nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation,
    will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    The author engages in a fascinating piece of theological reflection upon the military equipment of a Roman soldier to encourage the readers to “stand firm:”

    • belt [truth]
    • breastplate [justice/righteousness]
    • shoes [good news of peace]
    • shield [faith/faithfulness]
    • helmet [salvation]
    • sword [Spirit]

    One of my most vivid memories of a Sunday School graduation class involves a dramatic presentation of this passage with a young man dressed progressively in each item before another figure (dressed as Satan) unsuccessfully threw darts at the him! While the metaphor is vivid, we might wonder at Jesus’ disciples embracing such military imagery in their spirituality. One can hardly imagine Jews engaging in a similar reflection on the equipment of a Nazi SS officer in the decades following World War II.

    A willingness to use such metaphors in their religious literature may be another pointer that this book comes from a time later in the 1C, when the majority of Christians would have found it easy to identify with the character of a Roman soldier. These would not be Jewish Christians around the time of the Jewish War (66-73 CE).

    The theological problem posed by militarism in Christianity is captured nicely in this extract from Walter Wink:

    When, beginning with the emperor Constantine, the Christian church began receiving referential treatment by the empire that it had once so steadfastly opposed, war, which had once seemed so evil, now appeared to many to be a necessity for preserving and propagating the gospel.

    Christianity’s weaponless victory over the Roman empire eventuated in the weaponless victory of the empire over the gospel. No defeat is so well disguised as victory! In the year 303, Diocletian forbade any member of the Roman army to be a Christian. By the year 416, no one could be a member of the Roman army unless he was a Christian.

    It fell to Augustine (d. 430) to make the accommodation of Christianity to its new status as a privileged religion in support of the state. Augustine believed, on the basis of Matt. 5:38-42, that Christians had no right to defend themselves from violence. But he identified a problem which no earlier theologian had faced: what Augustine regarded as the loving obligation to use violence if necessary to defend the innocent against evil. Drawing on Stoic just war principles, he articulated the position that was to dominate church teaching from that time right up to the present. Ever since, Christians on the left and on the right, in the East and in the West, have found it exceedingly easy to declare as “just” and divinely ordained any wars their governments desired to wage for purely national interests. As a consequence, the world regards Christians as among the most warlike factions on the face of the earth. And little wonder; two-thirds of the people killed in the last 500 years died at the hands of fellow-Christians in Europe, to say nothing of those whom Christians killed in the course of colonizing the rest of the world.

    As Gandhi once quipped, “The only people on earth who do not see Christ and His teachings as nonviolent are Christians.”

     

    Gospel: Divisions over Jesus

    This week’s Gospel concludes the extended series on the Bread of Heaven theme from John 6. Next week the major lectionaries all revert to Mark, the default Gospel for Year B in the three year cycle.

    It is something of a surprise to read (6:59) that Jesus has been delivering this discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum, since the action has all seemed to be outdoors until this note.

    John now describes a conflict within the band of disciples (not between Jesus and “the Jews” such as we often find in GJohn). Some of the disciples find this teaching about eating Jesus’ body and drinking his blood to be offensive. As John tells the tale, this is evidence that they were not blessed by the Father with the spiritual disposition required for discipleship.

    The Johannine community had evidently experienced painful schism towards the end of the 1C, with those who had separated even earning the new label, “antichrists:”

    Children, it is the last hour!
    As you have heard that antichrist is coming,
    so now many antichrists have come.
    From this we know that it is the last hour.
    They went out from us,
    but they did not belong to us;
    for if they had belonged to us,
    they would have remained with us.
    But by going out they made it plain
    that none of them belongs to us. [1John 2:18-19]

    Something of that painful experience—of separation from those who cannot embrace the idea of Jesus as the human (flesh and blood) face of God—is seen in another passage of 1John 4:1-3:

    Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world.

    The readers of the Gospel are to imitate Peter who responds (6:68-69) when asked if the remaining disciples will also abandon Jesus:

    “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

     

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

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

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

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

  • Pentecost 11B (12 August 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • 2 Samuel 18:5-9,15,31-33 & Psalm 130
    • Ephesians 4:25-5:2
    • John 6:35, 41-51

     

    First Reading: The death of Absalom

    The narrative in 2 Samuel has now advanced several years. David is now a much an older man and his several adult children are wreaking havoc within the dynasty and the nation in fulfillment of Nathan’s prophecy in 2 Sam 12:11-12. In particular, the prediction that David’s wives and concubines would be taken from him and publicly ravaged by another man, has been fulfilled in the rebellion led by his son, Absalom.

    The RCL spares us the sordid story, and takes us into the climax of the struggle for control of the throne. In an ironic twist, David’s men go into battle against the army of Israel with high casualties on both sides. The army of Israel is defeated and Absalom himself is captured and (contrary to David’s explicit instructions) killed. David’s concern for his son, and his grief at Absalom’s demise, make a powerful scene in a classic literary narrative from the ancient world.

    In preparing for this week’s services, it may be helpful to read the complete narrative:

    • Amnon rapes Absalom’s sister, Tamar (2Sam 13:1-22)
    • Absalom murders Amnon (2Sam 13:23-33)
    • Absalom goes into exile (2Sam 13:34-39)
    • Absalom returns to court (2Sam 14:1-33)
    • Absalom cultivates popular support (2Sam 15:1-6)
    • Absalom seizes power in a coup (2Sam 15:7-12)
    • David flees and prepares to fight back (2Sam 15:13-17:29)
    • Absalom’s forces defeated (2Sam 18:1-19:8a)
    • David is restored to power (2Sam 19:8b-43)
    • David suppresses northern resistance (2Sam 20:1-26)

    This complex of stories makes up a considerable percentage of 2 Samuel and must therefore be assumed to have particular significance to the prophetic story-tellers who put together this “complex-chain narrative.” It is most likely that this sorry saga of failure and betrayal was seen as a paradigm of the nation as a whole, and functioned to explain theologically the demise of the nation in the face of Babylonian conquest.

    In The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel (JSOTS 55. Sheffield, 1987) Thomas L. Thompson has established that ancient Hebrew story-tellers were adept at creating new stories of considerable length and complexity using traditional stories and motifs.

    Second Reading: Holy living

    This passage provides an excellent example of early Christian paraenesis, or moral instruction. Having surveyed several major theological themes in the earlier part of the letter, the author now turns to provide explicit practical instruction on holy living.

    Gospel: Glimpses of a tradition developing over time

    Jesus, son of Joseph

    The GJohn is well-known for its complex and highly-developed theology. Less recognized is the same Gospel’s capacity to preserve historical nuggets that would otherwise be lost to us. One of those may be surfacing here in the reference to Jesus as the “son of Joseph” and the comfort with which the Johannine story-teller can describe Jesus’ opponents as saying they know his “father and mother.”
    In chapters 6, 7 and 8 we find casual references to Jesus’ parentage or birth place that are at odds with the later Christian tradition:
    son of Joseph, we know his father and mother …

    They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” [John 6:42]

    not born in Bethlehem

    When they heard these words, some in the crowd said, “This is really the prophet.” Others said, “This is the Messiah.” But some asked, “Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he? Has not the scripture said that the Messiah is descended from David and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?” So there was a division in the crowd because of him. Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him. [John 7:40-44]

    at least we know our father!

    They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing what Abraham did, but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are indeed doing what your father does.” They said to him, “We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God himself.” [John 8:39-41]

    not yet 50 years of age

    Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day; he saw it and was glad.” Then the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.” [John 8:56-58]

    It is not clear just what the tradition behind GJohn knew about Jesus’ family origins, but it is hard to imagine that a Christian author who was familiar with either Matthew or Luke could have written these words. It may simply be that we need to acknowledge that within the first 100 years there were Christians who had no trouble speaking of Joseph as Jesus’ biological father, and did not know (or did not accept) the tradition of Jesus being born at Bethlehem. In GJohn the most complex Christology and the simplest biology stand side by side.

    Apart from our interest in recovering Jesus’ biological origins, this Johannine passage is also interesting in another way. The words attributed to the crowd (“Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”) seem remarkably close to the words of the crowd in Nazareth when Jesus is rejected by his own townsfolk:

    Mark 6:2-3
    “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

    Matthew 13:54-56
    “Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?”

    Luke 4:22
    All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. They said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?”

    It is possible that John 6:42 preserves another version of the tradition first seen in Mark 6.

     
    Unless the Father draws them …

    The Jesus portrayed by the author of GJohn speaks of those who will not come to him to receive the bread of life because the Father has not drawn them.

    In some Christian circles, this has been interpreted as an expression of a divine decision to choose certain individuals (or even classes of people) for salvation, while intentionally consigning the remainder of humanity (and all of non-human creation) to destruction.

    It may be helpful to place this text alongside some other statements of the Johannine Jesus:

    I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold.
    I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice.
    So there will be one flock, one shepherd. [GJohn 10:16]

    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
    No one comes to the Father except through me. [GJohn 14:6]

    How are these different voices to be heard?

    It seems clear that we are dealing with a self-conscious Christian community that is deeply aware of its identity over and against the Torah observant synagogue communities (known as “the Jews” in GJohn), and also as different from (yet somehow connected to) the other Jesus communities, such as those associated with the Pauline mission, the Q community in Galilee, or even the Thomas Christians.

    GJohn 6 certainly expresses an awareness that some people, and particularly many of the Jews, will simply not accept Jesus as the bread of life, the one sent from God. For these Johannine Christians, Jesus was the only pathway they could now acknowledge (as expressed in GJohn 14:6). Yet there was also a sense that Jesus had sheep in “other pens” (GJohn 10:16).

    As disciples of Jesus in the 21C, we do not simply face the traditional questions of other Christian communities with different traditions than those we have practiced (ecumenism). Nor do we simply have to re-visit the age-old question of Jewish-Christian relationships as we acknowledge that Judaism is not fading away and that Jesus himself was never a Christian. We find ourselves pushed even further out into the deep waters. What about those other religions that simply were not known either to Jesus or to his earliest followers?

    Can we interpret this harsh saying of Jesus not as a declaration of eternal predestination to salvation for a select few, but rather as a statement acknowledging that the Father does not draw every human person to Jesus? For them, we might imagine Jesus saying that God’s generous love provides other pathways to life.

    Jesus Database

     

    Liturgies and Prayers

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

    Other recommended sites include:

     

    Music Suggestions

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

  • Pentecost 10B (5 August 2012)

    Contents

    Lectionary

    • 2 Samuel 11:26-12:13a & Psalm 51:1-12
    • Ephesians 4:1-16
    • John 6:24-35

    First Reading

    This week’s first reading in the RCL continues the story of David’s sexual liaison with Bath-Sheba, the wife of one of his senior officers. Having arranged for Uriah to be murdered on the battlefront, David is now able to add Bath-Sheba to his collection of wives.

    The heart of the story concerns God’s rebuke of David for his sin. This was couched in the famous parable of the poor farmer whose only sheep was taken for the pleasure of a rich neighbor who had many many animals in his flock.

    The use of such “case studies” when seeking to gain the ruler’s decision on a particular case is also known from other stories in the OT. A similar device appears in 2Sam 14 when a woman from Tekoa (later the home village of the prophet Amos) is used by another of David’s officials to engage the king on a difficult personal matter.

    The punishment that befalls David and Bath-Sheba is harsh and unremitting. The child born as a result of their passion will become ill and die. Worse still, if that is possible, their family will never be free from intrigue and violence:

    Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house,
    for you have despised me,
    and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.
    Thus says the LORD:
    “I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house;
    and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor,
    and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun.
    For you did it secretly;
    but I will do this thing before all Israel,
    and before the sun.”

    This grim prophecy will be worked out in the narratives that follow in 2 Samuel and 1 Kings.

    While the narrative corrects the abuse perpetrated by David, the story still leaves much to be desired as a moral text. There is no hint of challenging the royal prerogative to take other men’s wives, nor indeed to enjoy sexual relations with multiple partners drawn from the harem. We are still very much in an ancient patriarchal society. There is little of the “Kingdom values” proclaimed by Jesus in such a story.

    Like so much of the biblical texts — including such cultural icons as the Ten Commandments — the social realities reflected here come from, and reinforce, a world made by and for men.

    Second Reading

    In Eph 4:1-6 we have a number of phrases intended to promote a sense of unity in a Christian community whose unity had been problematic: one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God …

    “Faith” here seems to have moved from being a trusting attitude towards God (as seen in Jesus’ own practice and in the authentic writings of Paul) to become a noun, an “object” that is held and treasured. If that is correct, then this may another clue that we are dealing with a late 1C author whose views on this point are not unlike those found in Jude 3 (“contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints”).

    These words continue to play a role in today’s church communities through their use in liturgies such as baptism services. That alone would make them words with a remarkable shelf life, and expressions of a deep continuity across the centuries.
    The second part of this passage (vss. 7-16), develops the idea of underlying unity so as to include a diversity of gifts and ministries within the faith community.

    It is not necessary to see lists such as we find here and in 1Cor 12:4-11 as definitive for church life in subsequent generations. It may be better to see both lists as time capsules that preserve a snapshot of how the early Christian communities associated with Paul organized their own lives together.

    One of the interesting things to note is that the earlier snapshot (1Cor 12) tends to speak of functions, while the later document (Eph 4) now speaks of functionaries:

    1 Cor 12:4-11

    12:4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 12:5 and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; 12:6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. 12:7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

    12:8 To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom,
    and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
    12:9 to another faith by the same Spirit,
    to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
    12:10 to another the working of miracles,
    to another prophecy,
    to another the discernment of spirits,
    to another various kinds of tongues,
    to another the interpretation of tongues.

    12:11 All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.

    Ephesians 4:11-15

    4:11 The gifts he gave were that

    some would be apostles,
    some prophets,
    some evangelists,
    some pastors
    and teachers,

    4:12 equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 4:13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

    4:14 We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people’s trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 4:16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love.

    What kind of community is presupposed by the description in 1Cor 12? Does the shift from functions exercised to functionaries—with the God-given authority to act within the Church—reflect a more settled vision of Christian community?

    If we tried to describe the ways in which the Spirit of God is manifest in our own faith communities, what kind of list would we develop?

    Gospel

    This is the second in a series of five Sundays that draws on John 6 for the Gospel:

    • John 6:1-21 – feeding of the 5,000 & Jesus walking on water
    • 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

    The author moves from the story of the miraculous feeding to the discourse in which “Jesus” will develop the theme of himself being the Bread of Life that comes down from heaven. The transition is made by reference to traditional Jewish expectations that the Messiah’s appearance would be validated by certain “signs,” including miraculous bread from heaven.

    As we noted last week, a rabbinic commentary in the fourth century captures these expectations as follows:

    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).

    Central to the author’s craft here is the motif of ironic misunderstanding on the part of Jesus’ protagonists:

    So when the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum looking for Jesus.
    When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” Jesus answered them, “Very truly, I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his seal.” Then they said to him, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” So they said to him, “What sign are you going to give us then, so that we may see it and believe you? What work are you performing? Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Then Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
    Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.” (John 6:24-35 NRSV)

    In the Gospel of John we often find that Jesus says something, or performs some “sign” (his miracles are never simply acts of power in John, but always pointers to some deeper truth), that results in confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the observers. In many cases John seems to delight in using irony in these situations, with the uncomprehending opponents sometimes saying things that are more true than they realise.

    Examples of this can be seen in:

    • Mary and the steward at Cana (ch 2)
    • Nicodemus (ch 3)
    • Samaritan woman (ch 4)
    • Bread from heaven (ch 6)
    • Confusion over the Messiah’s origins (ch 7, esp. vss 40-44)
    • Caiaphas’ oracle (11:50)
    • Pilate and Jesus (see especially the alternative reading for 19:13)

    When Jesus challenges and clarifies their misunderstanding in John 6 the crowd responds with a line that echoes the request of the Samaritan woman after Jesus corrects her confusion:

    Crowd in 6:34 – “Sir, give us this bread always.”
    Woman in 4:15 – “Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty …”

    It is also interesting to note that up until the end of this section, the group of people engaging Jesus in conversation is simply called “the crowd.” However, as their disposition becomes increasingly hostile to Jesus in the following verses, the “crowd” becomes “the Jews.”

    This way of describing the opponents of Jesus is especially characteristic of John. Of the 76 examples of this phrase in the Gospels (including duplicates between the synoptics), 62 are found in John. By way of contrast, the phrase occurs only 5 times in the Pauline corpus, and only twice in the Book of Revelation.

    The implicit anti-Semitism of this phrase was perhaps not especially significant in the original context, when most Christians were Jewish. However, even in that context, the phrase still reflected the tensions between followers of Jesus and the Torah-observant “Jews” of the synagogue communities. As time passed, the anti-Semitism encoded within such biblical texts developed into theological stereotyping of the Jewish people, ethnic discrimination and murderous pogroms. The final obscenity was the Nazi holocaust.

    Jesus Database

    Crossan analysis:
    Item: 353
    Stratum: II (60-80 CE)
    Attestation: Single
    Historicity: –

    Liturgies and Prayers

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

    Other recommended sites include:

    Music Suggestions

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