Theme(s): Motherly nature of God, provision, anxiety, idolatry.
Sentence: Strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well (Matthew 6:33).
Collect:
Mighty God,
strong, loving and wise,
help us to depend upon your goodness
and to place our trust in your Son. Amen.
Readings:
Isaiah 49:8-16a
Psalm 131
1 Corinthians 4:1-5
Matthew 6:24-34
Commentary:
Isaiah 49:8-16a
Looking ahead to the gospel, what kind of God cares for us and provides for our needs? This passage in Isaiah presents Israel with a vision of God as carer and provider (8-13). Israel (having experienced the devastating pain of Babylonian exile) rightly and plaintively cries, "The Lord has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me" (14). Through the prophet, the Lord responds in strongly emotional terms. What mother could forget the child she has fed at her breasts? Could any mother lack compassion for a child she has borne in her womb? (15a). God is mother to Israel: "even these may forget, yet I will not forget you" (15b).
Psalm 131
This is a lovely psalm with the central image of a weaned (and contented) child. Worth pondering is the implied female imagery for God here. That is, God is the mother who has weaned the child after daily nurture through breast-feeding.
1 Corinthians 4:1-5
This is the concluding chapter in Paul's defensive and offensive explanation and justification of his ministry to the critical Corinthians. In these five verses Paul makes three simple points. The first two of these are applicable to all who minister in Christ's name in any situation. The third makes a specific point to the Corinthians while including a general point of application.
(1) What is a minister? (a) a 'servant of Christ' (b) a 'steward of God's mysteries' (verse 1). In other words, the tasks of those of us who are 'ministers' or 'in ministry' are concerned with the literal meaning of the word 'minister' which is 'service'. We serve Christ and in that service we make available the mysteries of God (i.e. the gospel which announces that God's hidden plan of salvation is now revealed through the coming, death and resurrection of Christ).
(2) A 'steward' or servant assigned to be manager of a household or business must be 'trustworthy' (verse 2). So too a servant of Christ who is a steward of God's mysteries. The mysteries must be faithfully made available to the world; the steward so assigned is asked to be trustworthy - at all times relied on to do this work.
So Paul (with an implied assertion that he is just such as servant and steward) makes a point specific to the Corinthians critical approach to his work:
(3) Humans judge ministers of the church but what counts is the judgment of the Lord (verses 3-5). So Paul is untroubled by the critical, judgmental view of the Corinthians. His concern is that the Lord approves of what he has been doing.
Matthew 6:24-34
Loads of sermons here! That is because quite a few interrelated themes are woven into this part of the Sermon. Wealth, both as a potential idolatrous rival to God (24) and as a cause of anxiety (i.e. do we have enough material wealth to pay for our daily needs, 25-34). Anxiety (25, 34) which is a fear that God is insufficient for and/or inattentive to our needs (see also 'you of little faith', 30). Life and what it consists of (25). God's provision of our needs (26-31). Our worth to God (26, 30).
Note that through this talk of Jesus bits of wisdom are also woven (which may connect with the invocation of Solomon, 29). So we find, "And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life?" (27) and "So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today's trouble is enough for today (34).
But the greatest theme through these verses is the character of God. Our Isaiah and Psalm readings have prepared us for what we find in the gospel reading. God is carer and provider to Israel, including the expanded 'Israel' of Christ's kingdom, whose citizens are the disciples addressed in his sermon. Whether we wonder where our next meal or drink or cloak is coming from, God will provide. Disciples of Jesus are not to worry about such things. Confidence in God as provider comes from consideration of creation itself. Birds without storage barns are fed by God via the way the world has been created. Flowers are beautifully adorned without ever weaving a thread. Yet birds and flowers are (relatively speaking) nothing compared to people, in God's sight.
Surely, though, one does not live as one wishes and expects bread on the table and clothes in the wardrobe? True, there is a condition imposed on the disciples: "strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you as well" (33).
But here 'condition' is not quite the right word, as though God won't help us until we fulfil this condition. Rather the point Jesus is making is that God will help his disciples as they go about the business of the kingdom. Preachers of the gospel of the kingdom need not worry about their material needs being provided for. God will look after them. Missioners active in spreading the kingdom through healing and deliverance ministry can focus on that work. Disciples following Jesus who have left trades and professions behind will be looked after.
Just as many of us have experienced our mothers as knowing what we need before we know it ourselves, so (putting Isaiah, Psalm and Matthew together), God our mother knows our needs and provides for them.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Sunday 23 February 2014 7th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Theme(s): Love you neighbour / God builds the church / Working with God on the church / Love your enemies
Sentence: If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also (Matthew 5:39)
Collect:
Give us, we pray you, gentle God,
a mind forgetful of past injury,
a will to seek the good of others
and a heart of love. Amen.
Readings:
Leviticus 19:1-2, 9-18
Psalm 119:33-40
1 Corinthians 3:10-11, 16-23
Matthew 5:38-48
Commentary:
Leviticus 19:1-2, 9-18
What is the single decisive intersection between the Sermon on the Mount (see our Gospel reading) and the Law of Moses (a part of which is the Old Testament reading today)?
A good case can be made that both concern holy living - the way of living which sets the godly person apart from the ungodly person, or, we could also say, the distinctive way of life which marks a believer in the God of Israel who is the God of Jesus Christ from those who do not so believe.
Leviticus 19 begins with a clear call to holiness: 'You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy' (2).
In what follows (including the omitted verses, 3-8), holy living is set out in detail. It includes acts of mercy and kindness (9-10, 14), actions most if not all cultures value re truth, honesty, respect for possessions of others and fair dealings (11, 13, 15-16), a distinctive action - not swearing falsely by God's name (12), and love rather than hatred towards neighbours including not taking vengeance and bearing grudges (17-18). The whole chapter covers even more ground in terms of human relationships, some of which makes perfectly good sense to this day (e.g. 31, 32), some of which we might want to debate (e.g. prohibition on tattoos, 28) and some of which might simply puzzle us (e.g. 27).
Sometimes the Law of Moses is derided as though it is out of date, out of touch primitive law-making for a people as far removed culturally from us as Mars is from Earth. But careful reading here impresses on us the Law's care and concern for holy living, for just, fair and honest dealings with people, for acts of kindness and mercy, and for love not hate towards others.
What is not to like?
Psalm 119:33-40
Look back to last week's post for comments on Psalm 119 in general as a psalm devoted to praising, receiving, and obeying the rules and commandments of God.
Here we might note the conviction of the psalmist that obedience to the Law of Moses is a means of life (35, 37, 40).
1 Corinthians 3:10-11, 16-23
Continuing from last week and the week before, Paul rounds off his argument (i.e. concern and anxiety for the well-being of the Corinthian church expressed through a persuasive argument) that the diverse work of Paul and Apollos is one work of God with a new image: last week, planting/watering/growing; this week, building. Paul has laid a foundation and Apollos has built on that but it is one building, not two.
The imagery is both ambiguous and capable of extension. The ambiguity is that if the church is a building built by Paul and Apollos, it is also God's building, its true foundation being Jesus Christ (11) and its status as 'God's temple' (16-17). The extension is that if the foundation is Jesus Christ and the work of apostles (= church planters/builders, both ancient and modern, both the Twelve (+Paul) and the likes of Apollos) is that of builders, then one day there will be ... a building inspection!
'Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw - the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done' (12-13).
As we each contribute to the building of God's church (which we do, by being members of the church, this is not just about 'ministers' or 'priests'), what are we building?
A sobering thought, especially when we read on through verses 14 and 15.
But Paul is not done here as he provokes the Corinthians about their poor showing re the state of their church. Moving the image of a building (in general) along, Paul questions the Corinthians (as a prosecutor in court might question a witness). 'Do you not know that you are God's temple (in particular) and that (just as ancient Israel believed God dwelt in the Temple in Jerusalem) God's Spirit dwells in you?' (16)
Disunity and division has capacity to 'destroy God's temple' (17). Well, Corinthians, note that God is not a neutral bystander when his (or we might say, 'HIS') temple is being destroyed (17).
Paul then reprises his talk of wisdom and foolishness from chapters one and two (18-20). That is, Corinthians: get up to speed here. You can be wise (and understand the true, unitary character of the one church of God built on the single foundation of Jesus Christ) or foolish (bitterly pursuing rivalries and competitions to destruction).
In short, Paul cuts to the conclusional chase, 'So let no one boast about human leaders' (21).
Effectively, Paul says, you are very small-minded, you Corinthians. You need to open your eyes: you can have everything and not settle for one thing (or one leader): 'all belong to you' (22).
Matthew 5:38-48
This passage is so well-known, phrases from it are embedded in the English language (e.g. 'turn the other cheek', 'going the second mile' and 'love your neighbour').
A detailed background in a commentary will bring to life aspects of the passage (e.g. why Jesus referred to the right cheek, or who it was who might ask you to carry something for one mile).
Here, in a brief commentary, we simply highlight that these verses envision a kingdom of generosity. Less eye for eye and tooth for tooth, more shaming your adversary by doing more for them than they require of you. Give freely, love inclusively. Pray for persecutors, love the unlovely.
In sum, be like God (48). (That takes us back, incidentally, to Leviticus 19:1-2 and its call to holiness because we are the people of a holy God.)
We could get to the last verse and despair: a counsel for perfection is just too hard, isn't it?
Yes, it is too hard if what Jesus was meant that the moment his sermon ended, he expected his hearers to be perfect. Yes, it is too hard if we are meant to be perfect in our own strength.
But, no, it is not too hard if we read more widely in Scripture and recognise the promise of the Holy Spirit, that God the Spirit will come to each of God's people and work in us to bring us to maturity in Christ.
And, no, it is not too hard if we recognise that the kingdom of God works on people being wholly committed to the gracious and loving way of God. It would not be the kingdom of God if it was worked on the basis of 'Try your best. If you love most people but nurse hatred and bitterness towards a few, that's fine. Give to the beggars who are not utterly repulsive. Only go the extra mile if it suits and you are not too tired.' Of course not!
That is, Jesus is not so much asking perfection of us, but asking us to commit to the perfect vision of the kingdom: the kingdom in which all are loved and grace touches everyone, including evildoers and enemies.
Sentence: If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also (Matthew 5:39)
Collect:
Give us, we pray you, gentle God,
a mind forgetful of past injury,
a will to seek the good of others
and a heart of love. Amen.
Readings:
Leviticus 19:1-2, 9-18
Psalm 119:33-40
1 Corinthians 3:10-11, 16-23
Matthew 5:38-48
Commentary:
Leviticus 19:1-2, 9-18
What is the single decisive intersection between the Sermon on the Mount (see our Gospel reading) and the Law of Moses (a part of which is the Old Testament reading today)?
A good case can be made that both concern holy living - the way of living which sets the godly person apart from the ungodly person, or, we could also say, the distinctive way of life which marks a believer in the God of Israel who is the God of Jesus Christ from those who do not so believe.
Leviticus 19 begins with a clear call to holiness: 'You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy' (2).
In what follows (including the omitted verses, 3-8), holy living is set out in detail. It includes acts of mercy and kindness (9-10, 14), actions most if not all cultures value re truth, honesty, respect for possessions of others and fair dealings (11, 13, 15-16), a distinctive action - not swearing falsely by God's name (12), and love rather than hatred towards neighbours including not taking vengeance and bearing grudges (17-18). The whole chapter covers even more ground in terms of human relationships, some of which makes perfectly good sense to this day (e.g. 31, 32), some of which we might want to debate (e.g. prohibition on tattoos, 28) and some of which might simply puzzle us (e.g. 27).
Sometimes the Law of Moses is derided as though it is out of date, out of touch primitive law-making for a people as far removed culturally from us as Mars is from Earth. But careful reading here impresses on us the Law's care and concern for holy living, for just, fair and honest dealings with people, for acts of kindness and mercy, and for love not hate towards others.
What is not to like?
Psalm 119:33-40
Look back to last week's post for comments on Psalm 119 in general as a psalm devoted to praising, receiving, and obeying the rules and commandments of God.
Here we might note the conviction of the psalmist that obedience to the Law of Moses is a means of life (35, 37, 40).
1 Corinthians 3:10-11, 16-23
Continuing from last week and the week before, Paul rounds off his argument (i.e. concern and anxiety for the well-being of the Corinthian church expressed through a persuasive argument) that the diverse work of Paul and Apollos is one work of God with a new image: last week, planting/watering/growing; this week, building. Paul has laid a foundation and Apollos has built on that but it is one building, not two.
The imagery is both ambiguous and capable of extension. The ambiguity is that if the church is a building built by Paul and Apollos, it is also God's building, its true foundation being Jesus Christ (11) and its status as 'God's temple' (16-17). The extension is that if the foundation is Jesus Christ and the work of apostles (= church planters/builders, both ancient and modern, both the Twelve (+Paul) and the likes of Apollos) is that of builders, then one day there will be ... a building inspection!
'Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw - the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done' (12-13).
As we each contribute to the building of God's church (which we do, by being members of the church, this is not just about 'ministers' or 'priests'), what are we building?
A sobering thought, especially when we read on through verses 14 and 15.
But Paul is not done here as he provokes the Corinthians about their poor showing re the state of their church. Moving the image of a building (in general) along, Paul questions the Corinthians (as a prosecutor in court might question a witness). 'Do you not know that you are God's temple (in particular) and that (just as ancient Israel believed God dwelt in the Temple in Jerusalem) God's Spirit dwells in you?' (16)
Disunity and division has capacity to 'destroy God's temple' (17). Well, Corinthians, note that God is not a neutral bystander when his (or we might say, 'HIS') temple is being destroyed (17).
Paul then reprises his talk of wisdom and foolishness from chapters one and two (18-20). That is, Corinthians: get up to speed here. You can be wise (and understand the true, unitary character of the one church of God built on the single foundation of Jesus Christ) or foolish (bitterly pursuing rivalries and competitions to destruction).
In short, Paul cuts to the conclusional chase, 'So let no one boast about human leaders' (21).
Effectively, Paul says, you are very small-minded, you Corinthians. You need to open your eyes: you can have everything and not settle for one thing (or one leader): 'all belong to you' (22).
Matthew 5:38-48
This passage is so well-known, phrases from it are embedded in the English language (e.g. 'turn the other cheek', 'going the second mile' and 'love your neighbour').
A detailed background in a commentary will bring to life aspects of the passage (e.g. why Jesus referred to the right cheek, or who it was who might ask you to carry something for one mile).
Here, in a brief commentary, we simply highlight that these verses envision a kingdom of generosity. Less eye for eye and tooth for tooth, more shaming your adversary by doing more for them than they require of you. Give freely, love inclusively. Pray for persecutors, love the unlovely.
In sum, be like God (48). (That takes us back, incidentally, to Leviticus 19:1-2 and its call to holiness because we are the people of a holy God.)
We could get to the last verse and despair: a counsel for perfection is just too hard, isn't it?
Yes, it is too hard if what Jesus was meant that the moment his sermon ended, he expected his hearers to be perfect. Yes, it is too hard if we are meant to be perfect in our own strength.
But, no, it is not too hard if we read more widely in Scripture and recognise the promise of the Holy Spirit, that God the Spirit will come to each of God's people and work in us to bring us to maturity in Christ.
And, no, it is not too hard if we recognise that the kingdom of God works on people being wholly committed to the gracious and loving way of God. It would not be the kingdom of God if it was worked on the basis of 'Try your best. If you love most people but nurse hatred and bitterness towards a few, that's fine. Give to the beggars who are not utterly repulsive. Only go the extra mile if it suits and you are not too tired.' Of course not!
That is, Jesus is not so much asking perfection of us, but asking us to commit to the perfect vision of the kingdom: the kingdom in which all are loved and grace touches everyone, including evildoers and enemies.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Sunday 16 February 2014 6th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Theme(s): Kingdom living / Church without party politics / Reckoning with God being in charge
Sentence: Happy are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord (Psalm 119:1)
Collect:
God of Israel old and new,
write in our hearts the lessons of your law;
prepare our minds to receive the gospel
made visible in your Son Jesus Christ. Amen.
Readings:
Deuteronomy 30:15-20
Psalm 119:1-8
1 Corinthians 3:1-9
Matthew 5:21-37
Commentary:
Deuteronomy 30:15-20
Do not read this passage if you think life consists of greys instead of black and white, or that God is kinda a real good dude who just wants to bless you whatever you choose to do. No!
'See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity.' (15)
If we squirm at the thought of a binary (good/bad, life/death) approach to decision-making and its consequences, it may be worth considering what kind of a God would offer something different to what we read here. Would God be much of a god if the offer was, say, 'It would be neat if you chose to obey me, but it doesn't matter if you disobey me'?
Of course there is no need to be at all uncomfortable in the presence of the God who speaks to us through this passage. Its resounding plea is 'Choose life' (19).
Though today we might hear the voice of God speaking to us as individuals about the course and destination of our lives, this original plea was to Israel. What kind of people would she choose to be? God's people living in God's way and thus blessed by God in the land promised to them by God? Or a dying people (18) enjoying the shortest of stays in the land they entered with hearts turned away from God towards other gods (17)?
As a matter of fact, Israel's history was a mixed bag. There was obedience (and times of blessing, notably in the reigns of David and Solomon) and there was disobedience (and times of cursing, notably exile, from the perspective of which Deuteronomy was written in the form we read it today).
Psalm 119:1-8
Famously every verse of this longest psalm refers to the Law (e.g. law, statute, precept, commandment, decree, word, ordinance, way). It celebrates the keeping of the 'law of the Lord' (1) and mixes up the promise of blessing for obedience (1-2) with prayer for steadfastness (5), reminder of God's will that his commandments be kept (4), and statement of intention to obey (7-8).
The connection with our gospel reading is clear: Jesus is outlining in Matthew 5:21-37 what he meant when he said that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it (5:17-20). A Christian following Jesus' teaching on the law of God can enter fully into the spirit of Psalm 119.
1 Corinthians 3:1-9
We continue through 1 Corinthians (with readings which are not intended to 'relate' to the gospel reading of the day).
Having eloquently spoken of the true spiritual wisdom found in (and only in) Christ (chapters 1 and 2), Paul is frank and robustly critical of his Corinthian audience.
He compares a potential 'spiritual' audience with the 'people of the flesh' to whom he writes (1, also 2,3). On the one hand 'spiritual' is comparable to 'immature' or 'infantile' (so also comparison between feeding with 'with milk, not solid food' (2)). On the other hand 'still of the flesh' is the state of 'jealousy and quarrelling' (3) specifically linked to a form of party allegiance: 'one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos" (4). This dissension in the Corinthian ranks has already been introduced as a topic for the letter (chapter 1). Now Paul addresses it further, in an argument which will continue through to the end of chapter 4.
We could puzzle endlessly about the nature of the party allegiances. Was it an allegiance to perceived difference in teaching content between Paul and Apollos (and Cephas, mentioned in 3:22)? Was each teacher being treated as a kind of principal of a particular school of Greek philosophy (or rabbinical leader of a Jewish school of interpretation)? Or was the allegiance more human than that, so that the allegiance was heartfelt affection towards the apostle who brought the party loyalist into faith through baptism?
However the allegiances came about, Paul is clear that a strong sense of 'belonging' is involved (4). So he takes up this sense of belonging in verses 5-9. What are Paul and Apollos? We could perhaps use the word 'just' here: just servants of the Lord; just servants of the Lord who happened to be in Corinth at a certain time so that Corinthians came to belief through one or other as the Lord 'assigned to each' (5). Just so, no more, no less.
Paul then makes a distinction between the work of each. He 'planted', Apollos 'watered' (6). Perhaps Paul preached first and Apollos second. Not for the last time in the history of evangelism, the later preacher (so to speak) reaped the harvest from the seed sown by the first. (Here in Aotearoa New Zealand we might look back in this bi-centennial year to Marsden preaching with little fruit re conversions in 1814 (and successive preaching trips) and then forward to the 1830s when many Maori converted to the Christian faith). But. Where does the real credit for the success of the apostolic mission in Corinth lie? With God: 'but God gave the growth' (6).
Thus, Pauls says, neither he nor Apollos (by comparison) amount to 'anything' (7). What matters is 'God who gives the growth' (7). This is where the Corinthians' allegiance should be placed.
With this unifying factor in place in his argument Paul draws out the implications in verses 8 and 9. Paul and Apollos have had a 'common purpose' in their work. They are not their own men but 'God's servants, working together.' The Corinthians are not many parties of Christians but one entity: 'you are God's field, God's building.'
But we do not read this passage for a lesson in Corinthian church history. What is God the Holy Spirit saying to the church today through this passage?
Is the message here about growth into Christian maturity as a congregation? Whether riven with party conflicts or not, congregations can be torn in two or three by other divisions. (Is there a question for the global church about its (im)maturity as a church of many denominations?)
Is the message about how we see ourselves in ministry? It is natural to seek limelight, even in the church. Theoretically we deplore party allegiances, secretly we might wish we had a following! Do we need to take a sober reckoning of our personal ministry role as simply that of a servant of the Lord: what counts is God's work in the church.
If God's work in the church is what counts, where do we see that work occurring? If the work of the servants of the Lord counts for little by comparison with the work of God, then that frees us from worrying that (say) we do not seem to have giants of the faith around us today as we had in former days. One kind of anxiety in the church concerns where the Pauls and Apolloses of the 21st century are to be found. But does that matter? What is God up to?
Matthew 5:21-37
There is a lot of material here! Topically we have murder/hate (21-22); reconciliation (23-24, 25-26); adultery/lust (27-28, with added comment re parts of our bodies which cause us to sin, 29-30); divorce (31-32); oaths (36-37). There is a challenging and meaty sermon series laid out for us to follow. However that is not our task with this passage, which is to preach one sermon on these seventeen verses.
It could be that we take the opportunity to major on just one topic - that would be a reasonable way to respond to the passage. In which case we might want to delve into a commentary for consideration of important subtleties: e.g. what was in the background concerning life in Jesus' day which led to the way he teaches about oaths, reconciliation and divorce? How do we honour Jesus' words about remarriage in verse 32 with due seriousness, words which bluntly state that remarriage of a divorced woman creates a state of adultery?
To an extent (being upfront), a sermon which sweeps across the whole passage offers the option of not addressing difficult issues such as those within verse 32. Yet such a sermon cannot avoid the fact that taken together, these verses confront just about every member of the congregation with some challenge or another. Who among us is reconciled to every person we have ever had a quarrel with? What person is free of lust? (Speaking as a man, in a world where many images of sexually exciting women are staples of advertising in print and video media, verse 28 challenges!) We live in an age in which many marriages end in divorce. A gentleman's word used to be his bond and business deals were struck on the shake of a hand, but now, it seems, nothing can happen without some voluminous contract being vetted by expensive lawyers.
We might also reckon with the fact that many readers/hearers of verses 29-30 are genuinely troubled by what these verses mean. Do they literally apply so the solution to lust is plucking one's eyes out and the end of thievery is bound to follow from losing one's hands? (To respond quickly on this matter: as is the case elsewhere in the gospels, Jesus is exaggerating to make a point. Self-mutilation is not required by Christians taking the Sermon seriously. But radical action may be the only solution to problems such as lust and theft. To cease lusting, do I need to stop watching TV and trawling the internet? A shoplifter needs to stop going into shops. Etc.)
So, what then for the preacher? I suggest we have a nice long cup of coffee or tea or smoothie and think through what it would mean to be faithful to Jesus to preach on his Sermon.
Would it be faithful to preach on this passage as though we were the kind of rabbi Jesus seemed to despise, the kind who found ways around the laws of God rather than insisted on obedience to them?
(Conversely) would it be faithful to Jesus to preach on this passage in such a way that we were like another kind of despised rabbi, the kind who makes their hearers feel more weighed down and oppressed by the end of the sermon than they were at the beginning, suffocating under the weight of obligation to be perfect now in both outward action and inward attitude?
If the Sermon is a charter or manifesto for the kingdom of God, then it sets out a vision for how we will live in a renewed society of God's people. A restored humanity within this society lives in harmony with one another: neither murder nor hatred nor unreconciled relationships are compatible with this vision. Betrayal in marriage through adultery, imbalanced relationships between the sexes because lust fuels domination of one sex over the other is not compatible either. Drastic action may be required to match the deeds and attitudes of members of the kingdom with the vision of the kingdom. Truth telling is also vital to the kingdom, whether we think of faithfulness to marriage vows in particular, or commitment to any vow made simply.
Can we, in our sermons this week, capture the seriousness of what is at stake in this teaching of Jesus with the inspiration of what God desires of his kingdom people?
Sentence: Happy are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord (Psalm 119:1)
Collect:
God of Israel old and new,
write in our hearts the lessons of your law;
prepare our minds to receive the gospel
made visible in your Son Jesus Christ. Amen.
Readings:
Deuteronomy 30:15-20
Psalm 119:1-8
1 Corinthians 3:1-9
Matthew 5:21-37
Commentary:
Deuteronomy 30:15-20
Do not read this passage if you think life consists of greys instead of black and white, or that God is kinda a real good dude who just wants to bless you whatever you choose to do. No!
'See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity.' (15)
If we squirm at the thought of a binary (good/bad, life/death) approach to decision-making and its consequences, it may be worth considering what kind of a God would offer something different to what we read here. Would God be much of a god if the offer was, say, 'It would be neat if you chose to obey me, but it doesn't matter if you disobey me'?
Of course there is no need to be at all uncomfortable in the presence of the God who speaks to us through this passage. Its resounding plea is 'Choose life' (19).
Though today we might hear the voice of God speaking to us as individuals about the course and destination of our lives, this original plea was to Israel. What kind of people would she choose to be? God's people living in God's way and thus blessed by God in the land promised to them by God? Or a dying people (18) enjoying the shortest of stays in the land they entered with hearts turned away from God towards other gods (17)?
As a matter of fact, Israel's history was a mixed bag. There was obedience (and times of blessing, notably in the reigns of David and Solomon) and there was disobedience (and times of cursing, notably exile, from the perspective of which Deuteronomy was written in the form we read it today).
Psalm 119:1-8
Famously every verse of this longest psalm refers to the Law (e.g. law, statute, precept, commandment, decree, word, ordinance, way). It celebrates the keeping of the 'law of the Lord' (1) and mixes up the promise of blessing for obedience (1-2) with prayer for steadfastness (5), reminder of God's will that his commandments be kept (4), and statement of intention to obey (7-8).
The connection with our gospel reading is clear: Jesus is outlining in Matthew 5:21-37 what he meant when he said that he had not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it (5:17-20). A Christian following Jesus' teaching on the law of God can enter fully into the spirit of Psalm 119.
1 Corinthians 3:1-9
We continue through 1 Corinthians (with readings which are not intended to 'relate' to the gospel reading of the day).
Having eloquently spoken of the true spiritual wisdom found in (and only in) Christ (chapters 1 and 2), Paul is frank and robustly critical of his Corinthian audience.
He compares a potential 'spiritual' audience with the 'people of the flesh' to whom he writes (1, also 2,3). On the one hand 'spiritual' is comparable to 'immature' or 'infantile' (so also comparison between feeding with 'with milk, not solid food' (2)). On the other hand 'still of the flesh' is the state of 'jealousy and quarrelling' (3) specifically linked to a form of party allegiance: 'one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apollos" (4). This dissension in the Corinthian ranks has already been introduced as a topic for the letter (chapter 1). Now Paul addresses it further, in an argument which will continue through to the end of chapter 4.
We could puzzle endlessly about the nature of the party allegiances. Was it an allegiance to perceived difference in teaching content between Paul and Apollos (and Cephas, mentioned in 3:22)? Was each teacher being treated as a kind of principal of a particular school of Greek philosophy (or rabbinical leader of a Jewish school of interpretation)? Or was the allegiance more human than that, so that the allegiance was heartfelt affection towards the apostle who brought the party loyalist into faith through baptism?
However the allegiances came about, Paul is clear that a strong sense of 'belonging' is involved (4). So he takes up this sense of belonging in verses 5-9. What are Paul and Apollos? We could perhaps use the word 'just' here: just servants of the Lord; just servants of the Lord who happened to be in Corinth at a certain time so that Corinthians came to belief through one or other as the Lord 'assigned to each' (5). Just so, no more, no less.
Paul then makes a distinction between the work of each. He 'planted', Apollos 'watered' (6). Perhaps Paul preached first and Apollos second. Not for the last time in the history of evangelism, the later preacher (so to speak) reaped the harvest from the seed sown by the first. (Here in Aotearoa New Zealand we might look back in this bi-centennial year to Marsden preaching with little fruit re conversions in 1814 (and successive preaching trips) and then forward to the 1830s when many Maori converted to the Christian faith). But. Where does the real credit for the success of the apostolic mission in Corinth lie? With God: 'but God gave the growth' (6).
Thus, Pauls says, neither he nor Apollos (by comparison) amount to 'anything' (7). What matters is 'God who gives the growth' (7). This is where the Corinthians' allegiance should be placed.
With this unifying factor in place in his argument Paul draws out the implications in verses 8 and 9. Paul and Apollos have had a 'common purpose' in their work. They are not their own men but 'God's servants, working together.' The Corinthians are not many parties of Christians but one entity: 'you are God's field, God's building.'
But we do not read this passage for a lesson in Corinthian church history. What is God the Holy Spirit saying to the church today through this passage?
Is the message here about growth into Christian maturity as a congregation? Whether riven with party conflicts or not, congregations can be torn in two or three by other divisions. (Is there a question for the global church about its (im)maturity as a church of many denominations?)
Is the message about how we see ourselves in ministry? It is natural to seek limelight, even in the church. Theoretically we deplore party allegiances, secretly we might wish we had a following! Do we need to take a sober reckoning of our personal ministry role as simply that of a servant of the Lord: what counts is God's work in the church.
If God's work in the church is what counts, where do we see that work occurring? If the work of the servants of the Lord counts for little by comparison with the work of God, then that frees us from worrying that (say) we do not seem to have giants of the faith around us today as we had in former days. One kind of anxiety in the church concerns where the Pauls and Apolloses of the 21st century are to be found. But does that matter? What is God up to?
Matthew 5:21-37
There is a lot of material here! Topically we have murder/hate (21-22); reconciliation (23-24, 25-26); adultery/lust (27-28, with added comment re parts of our bodies which cause us to sin, 29-30); divorce (31-32); oaths (36-37). There is a challenging and meaty sermon series laid out for us to follow. However that is not our task with this passage, which is to preach one sermon on these seventeen verses.
It could be that we take the opportunity to major on just one topic - that would be a reasonable way to respond to the passage. In which case we might want to delve into a commentary for consideration of important subtleties: e.g. what was in the background concerning life in Jesus' day which led to the way he teaches about oaths, reconciliation and divorce? How do we honour Jesus' words about remarriage in verse 32 with due seriousness, words which bluntly state that remarriage of a divorced woman creates a state of adultery?
To an extent (being upfront), a sermon which sweeps across the whole passage offers the option of not addressing difficult issues such as those within verse 32. Yet such a sermon cannot avoid the fact that taken together, these verses confront just about every member of the congregation with some challenge or another. Who among us is reconciled to every person we have ever had a quarrel with? What person is free of lust? (Speaking as a man, in a world where many images of sexually exciting women are staples of advertising in print and video media, verse 28 challenges!) We live in an age in which many marriages end in divorce. A gentleman's word used to be his bond and business deals were struck on the shake of a hand, but now, it seems, nothing can happen without some voluminous contract being vetted by expensive lawyers.
We might also reckon with the fact that many readers/hearers of verses 29-30 are genuinely troubled by what these verses mean. Do they literally apply so the solution to lust is plucking one's eyes out and the end of thievery is bound to follow from losing one's hands? (To respond quickly on this matter: as is the case elsewhere in the gospels, Jesus is exaggerating to make a point. Self-mutilation is not required by Christians taking the Sermon seriously. But radical action may be the only solution to problems such as lust and theft. To cease lusting, do I need to stop watching TV and trawling the internet? A shoplifter needs to stop going into shops. Etc.)
So, what then for the preacher? I suggest we have a nice long cup of coffee or tea or smoothie and think through what it would mean to be faithful to Jesus to preach on his Sermon.
Would it be faithful to preach on this passage as though we were the kind of rabbi Jesus seemed to despise, the kind who found ways around the laws of God rather than insisted on obedience to them?
(Conversely) would it be faithful to Jesus to preach on this passage in such a way that we were like another kind of despised rabbi, the kind who makes their hearers feel more weighed down and oppressed by the end of the sermon than they were at the beginning, suffocating under the weight of obligation to be perfect now in both outward action and inward attitude?
If the Sermon is a charter or manifesto for the kingdom of God, then it sets out a vision for how we will live in a renewed society of God's people. A restored humanity within this society lives in harmony with one another: neither murder nor hatred nor unreconciled relationships are compatible with this vision. Betrayal in marriage through adultery, imbalanced relationships between the sexes because lust fuels domination of one sex over the other is not compatible either. Drastic action may be required to match the deeds and attitudes of members of the kingdom with the vision of the kingdom. Truth telling is also vital to the kingdom, whether we think of faithfulness to marriage vows in particular, or commitment to any vow made simply.
Can we, in our sermons this week, capture the seriousness of what is at stake in this teaching of Jesus with the inspiration of what God desires of his kingdom people?
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Sunday 9 February 2014 5th Sunday in Ordinary Time
Theme(s): Salt / Light / Righteousness according to Jesus / Wisdom / Discipleship / Christian character / Spiritual truth / True spirituality
Sentence: Shine forth fom your throne upon the cherubim; restore us O God; show us the light of your face and we shall be saved. (Psalm 80:1,3)
Collect:
We praise you, God,
that the light of Christ shines in our darkness
and is never overcome;
show us the way we must go to eternal day;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Readings:
Isaiah 58:1-9a
Psalm 112:1-9
1 Corinthians 2:1-12
Matthew 5:13-20
Commentary:
Isaiah 58:1-9a
With an eye on the gospel reading (from the Sermon on the Mount) in which Jesus teaches what the real oil is on what God expects of God's people about the way they live, we read this stirring passage as a challenge in a similar vein: what does God really, really expect of us?
The prophet (bad pun coming up) fastens on fasting as an issue. He paints a picture of his fellow Israelites fasting intently and faithfully and then complaining that God seemingly offers no accreditation (v.3). To them he says, as the voice of God speaks through him, your fasting is a sham. Verses 3-7 outline both the problem (fasting covers over unjust treatment of others) and the remedy (understand the true fast of God and do that instead of going without food).
Once the prophet launches into his memorable method of outlining what true fasting is, by asking an emotively powerful set of rhetorical questions, all Jewish and Christian ethics would never be the same again.
'Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice .. Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house ...' (vss. 6-7)
Psalm 112:1-9
This psalm ties neatly into the Old Testament reading re just living (vss. 5-6, 9) and with the gospel, especially Jesus telling the disciples that they are the light of the world = 'They rise in the darkness as a light for the upright, they are gracious, merciful and righteous' (vs. 4). Indeed one way to summarise the whole of the Sermon on the Mount could be to say that those disciples who live accordingly will be 'gracious, merciful and righteous.'
One feature of the life encouraged by the psalm is that the righteous live lives of 'happy stability' (see vss. 1, 6-8).
1 Corinthians 2:1-12
This is a very deep passage on which we could linger in theological reflection at many points. Its depth comes from Paul exploring the 'mystery of God' in the context of Corinth, a seaside city of many cultures with a church of several allegiances informed by two great philosophies of the day, Hellenism with its interest in 'wisdom' and Judaism with its interest in 'signs' (1:22).
Wisdom communicated itself in those days with 'lofty words' (2:1) and 'plausible words' (2:4), that is, in the rhetorical (persuasive) style of speech familiar to the Hellenistic world. On the one hand Paul seems to have been poor at such an approach (2:3-4). On the other hand, he is proud of this inability for what he has to say (the gospel of the crucified Christ) is not an argument to be presented persuasively ('so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God', v.5) but a 'demonstration of the Spirit and of power' (v.4).
Picking up the flow of Paul's themes developed in this and the previous chapter, he is saying that the pitiful weakness of a crucified man (and an obscure resident of Palestine on the edge of the empire at that) is 'foolish' for Greeks (1:23 etc) and a 'stumbling block' to Jews (1.23 etc) has no power in the usual way of persuasion to persuade hearers of the gospel that on the cross true wisdom lies and in the cross is the greatest sign of God at work in the world. No, the effectiveness of preaching the gospel lies with the Spirit's power to convict hearers that truth lies in the 'mystery of God' at work in Jesus Christ crucified rather than the opposite (e.g. if Jesus were a great philosopher in the mode of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and a miracle worker in the style of Elijah and Elisha).
Understanding this, Paul goes on to say, Jesus Christ is the actual wisdom from God (1:30; 2:6-7).
What then follows in the passage, 2:9-12 (and 2:13-16) is an account of how God's truth is discovered: God reveals it (2:7, 10); the Spirit of God is the agent of revelation (2:10-13); the Spirit is able to reveal because only the Spirit of God 'comprehends what is truly God's' (2:11).
Note how the emphasis falls in this passage on truth being a gift from God, enabled by God and made available by God according to God's timing. On this matter Paul would have been in accord with his Jewish readers/hearers but out of sync with his Greek hearers/readers whose Hellenistic background assumed 'wisdom' was discoverable by insightful human intellectual exploration.
Much more could be said on this passage. One specific point of reflection would be to consider what this passage says to the church today about communicating the gospel. To offer one tiny illustration of where such reflection might go: is the church tempted to think that its problems with communication of the gospel are about getting the right advertising agency involved in marketing the gospel? If so, to what extent is an "advertising agency involved in marketing" a 21st century equivalent of 1st century Hellenistic philosophers plying their rhetorical (persuasive) trade?
Matthew 5:13-20
[NB A downside to following the lectionary is that allowing for the presentation of Jesus last Sunday (thus drawing on the only gospel reading which can apply, a reading from Luke 2) and using Matthew 5:1-13 on All Saints Day (this year, 2 November) we end up with an interrupted reading of the gospel. Two weeks ago we were setting off on Jesus' mission after his baptism (Matthew 4).
Now we have dived into the Sermon on the Mount without a Sunday to reflect on how the sermon begins, Matthew 5:1-12, and what that beginning says, especially what it says in terms of setting the tone for what follows (e.g. the theme of blessing, the unexpectedness of who is blessed and thus preparing us for the 'upside down' ethical world of the kingdom of God).
We also miss the setting in which Jesus draws his disciples aside yet we must compare this with what we learn at the end of the Sermon, that the crowds 'were astounded at his teaching' (7:28): thus is a tension created which the church has wrestled with ever since: is the high demands of the Sermon for all Christians or for a more select group (e.g. those called to monastic orders)].
Once again we are in biblical territory where many themes are densely packed into a few verses. We could easily preach a whole sermon on being salt of the earth (v. 13) or light of the world (v.14-15) or the relationship between good works (v. 16) and faith. Books get published on the meaning of 5:17-20 in respect of Jesus' understanding of the importance and continuing relevance of the Law of Moses for Christians living in the age of a new covenant with God.
Perhaps more so than other weeks, the few following remarks make no pretence to offer a route of avoidance of effort looking up a decent commentary or three!
What we might usefully consider as one reflection on this passage is to ask a question about what is at stake here.
Jesus has begun the task of bringing the kingdom of God into the world (or, if you prefer, bringing the world into the kingdom of God). He has preached the gospel of the kingdom and enacted kingdom business: that is, whether we think of the kingdom as the intimate (and immanent) reign of God over the affairs of the world, or as the restoration of creation, Jesus has announced that reign is at hand and has begun to restore creation through healings and deliverance (4:17-25).
Now in this wide-ranging sermon Jesus addresses the question of how those in the kingdom (disciples who have responded to Jesus' call to follow him) should live. Kingdom living, by implication from chapter 4, will be life lived which demonstrates the rule of God over disciples and which lives out the original vision of creation of humanity being in loving harmony with one another.
Even just a few living in this way will be like salt in food: its presence makes a difference to the food. A little light (even a few disciples living in the kingdom way) destroys a lot of darkness. Living saltily and lightfully will draw people to praise God.
We could pause right here in our sermon and ask of ourselves as well as of our hearers, Does anyone in our community/workplace/sports club know that we are Christians? What is different about our lives which demonstrates the rule of God over us and which offers a sign of creation being restored?
In similar vein we could tackle 5:17-20 (on which, we remember, books have been written). If we go back to what the 'law or the prophets' (v. 17) were about, they were not about Israel living by a random set of strange rules, the stranger the better for demonstrating how faithful Israel was to a strange God. No! They were on about Israel living in a fallen world a community life in which people sought to live harmoniously with one another while honouring the rule of God over their lives, with the plus that some rules provided for ways of restoration (of people to God and to one another) when things went wrong). The prophets often made the point that one other thing could go wrong with trying to live in this way: the rules might be misunderstood so that the comparatively tiny ones (e.g. about the finer points of ceremony) could outweigh the actually important ones (like living justly and treating others mercifully).
With this in mind we could understand 5:17-20 in this way: Jesus is saying that the vision for life underlying the law and the prophets was his vision too. Accordingly he has not come to change anything about the law and the prophets as they relate to living under God's rule and to living in harmony with one another. We need to put those italicised words into the picture because clearly Jesus did change some rules (e.g. about clean/unclean foods).
What we then find Jesus doing in 5:21 and following is not undo the law but to intensify it. Looking ahead to just one such treatment, re murder, 5:21-22, Jesus affirms that murder is wrong (it dishonours God who has made each of us equal in his sight; it (obviously) breaks harmony in society) and then goes beyond that. Hatred of another also dishonours God and disrupts social harmony.
Back to 5:13-20. Jesus can end this section by saying the disciples' righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (see also 'You must be perfect' at the end of chapter 6) because life in the kingdom is no less a vision for living under the rule of God and for living in harmony with one another than the vision that drives the scribes and the Pharisees to live as they do.
What is (and could or should be) interesting about the weeks ahead in Matthew's Gospel is asking the question, what difference does Jesus make to these two ways to live out the same vision?
Sentence: Shine forth fom your throne upon the cherubim; restore us O God; show us the light of your face and we shall be saved. (Psalm 80:1,3)
Collect:
We praise you, God,
that the light of Christ shines in our darkness
and is never overcome;
show us the way we must go to eternal day;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Readings:
Isaiah 58:1-9a
Psalm 112:1-9
1 Corinthians 2:1-12
Matthew 5:13-20
Commentary:
Isaiah 58:1-9a
With an eye on the gospel reading (from the Sermon on the Mount) in which Jesus teaches what the real oil is on what God expects of God's people about the way they live, we read this stirring passage as a challenge in a similar vein: what does God really, really expect of us?
The prophet (bad pun coming up) fastens on fasting as an issue. He paints a picture of his fellow Israelites fasting intently and faithfully and then complaining that God seemingly offers no accreditation (v.3). To them he says, as the voice of God speaks through him, your fasting is a sham. Verses 3-7 outline both the problem (fasting covers over unjust treatment of others) and the remedy (understand the true fast of God and do that instead of going without food).
Once the prophet launches into his memorable method of outlining what true fasting is, by asking an emotively powerful set of rhetorical questions, all Jewish and Christian ethics would never be the same again.
'Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice .. Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house ...' (vss. 6-7)
Psalm 112:1-9
This psalm ties neatly into the Old Testament reading re just living (vss. 5-6, 9) and with the gospel, especially Jesus telling the disciples that they are the light of the world = 'They rise in the darkness as a light for the upright, they are gracious, merciful and righteous' (vs. 4). Indeed one way to summarise the whole of the Sermon on the Mount could be to say that those disciples who live accordingly will be 'gracious, merciful and righteous.'
One feature of the life encouraged by the psalm is that the righteous live lives of 'happy stability' (see vss. 1, 6-8).
1 Corinthians 2:1-12
This is a very deep passage on which we could linger in theological reflection at many points. Its depth comes from Paul exploring the 'mystery of God' in the context of Corinth, a seaside city of many cultures with a church of several allegiances informed by two great philosophies of the day, Hellenism with its interest in 'wisdom' and Judaism with its interest in 'signs' (1:22).
Wisdom communicated itself in those days with 'lofty words' (2:1) and 'plausible words' (2:4), that is, in the rhetorical (persuasive) style of speech familiar to the Hellenistic world. On the one hand Paul seems to have been poor at such an approach (2:3-4). On the other hand, he is proud of this inability for what he has to say (the gospel of the crucified Christ) is not an argument to be presented persuasively ('so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God', v.5) but a 'demonstration of the Spirit and of power' (v.4).
Picking up the flow of Paul's themes developed in this and the previous chapter, he is saying that the pitiful weakness of a crucified man (and an obscure resident of Palestine on the edge of the empire at that) is 'foolish' for Greeks (1:23 etc) and a 'stumbling block' to Jews (1.23 etc) has no power in the usual way of persuasion to persuade hearers of the gospel that on the cross true wisdom lies and in the cross is the greatest sign of God at work in the world. No, the effectiveness of preaching the gospel lies with the Spirit's power to convict hearers that truth lies in the 'mystery of God' at work in Jesus Christ crucified rather than the opposite (e.g. if Jesus were a great philosopher in the mode of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and a miracle worker in the style of Elijah and Elisha).
Understanding this, Paul goes on to say, Jesus Christ is the actual wisdom from God (1:30; 2:6-7).
What then follows in the passage, 2:9-12 (and 2:13-16) is an account of how God's truth is discovered: God reveals it (2:7, 10); the Spirit of God is the agent of revelation (2:10-13); the Spirit is able to reveal because only the Spirit of God 'comprehends what is truly God's' (2:11).
Note how the emphasis falls in this passage on truth being a gift from God, enabled by God and made available by God according to God's timing. On this matter Paul would have been in accord with his Jewish readers/hearers but out of sync with his Greek hearers/readers whose Hellenistic background assumed 'wisdom' was discoverable by insightful human intellectual exploration.
Much more could be said on this passage. One specific point of reflection would be to consider what this passage says to the church today about communicating the gospel. To offer one tiny illustration of where such reflection might go: is the church tempted to think that its problems with communication of the gospel are about getting the right advertising agency involved in marketing the gospel? If so, to what extent is an "advertising agency involved in marketing" a 21st century equivalent of 1st century Hellenistic philosophers plying their rhetorical (persuasive) trade?
Matthew 5:13-20
[NB A downside to following the lectionary is that allowing for the presentation of Jesus last Sunday (thus drawing on the only gospel reading which can apply, a reading from Luke 2) and using Matthew 5:1-13 on All Saints Day (this year, 2 November) we end up with an interrupted reading of the gospel. Two weeks ago we were setting off on Jesus' mission after his baptism (Matthew 4).
Now we have dived into the Sermon on the Mount without a Sunday to reflect on how the sermon begins, Matthew 5:1-12, and what that beginning says, especially what it says in terms of setting the tone for what follows (e.g. the theme of blessing, the unexpectedness of who is blessed and thus preparing us for the 'upside down' ethical world of the kingdom of God).
We also miss the setting in which Jesus draws his disciples aside yet we must compare this with what we learn at the end of the Sermon, that the crowds 'were astounded at his teaching' (7:28): thus is a tension created which the church has wrestled with ever since: is the high demands of the Sermon for all Christians or for a more select group (e.g. those called to monastic orders)].
Once again we are in biblical territory where many themes are densely packed into a few verses. We could easily preach a whole sermon on being salt of the earth (v. 13) or light of the world (v.14-15) or the relationship between good works (v. 16) and faith. Books get published on the meaning of 5:17-20 in respect of Jesus' understanding of the importance and continuing relevance of the Law of Moses for Christians living in the age of a new covenant with God.
Perhaps more so than other weeks, the few following remarks make no pretence to offer a route of avoidance of effort looking up a decent commentary or three!
What we might usefully consider as one reflection on this passage is to ask a question about what is at stake here.
Jesus has begun the task of bringing the kingdom of God into the world (or, if you prefer, bringing the world into the kingdom of God). He has preached the gospel of the kingdom and enacted kingdom business: that is, whether we think of the kingdom as the intimate (and immanent) reign of God over the affairs of the world, or as the restoration of creation, Jesus has announced that reign is at hand and has begun to restore creation through healings and deliverance (4:17-25).
Now in this wide-ranging sermon Jesus addresses the question of how those in the kingdom (disciples who have responded to Jesus' call to follow him) should live. Kingdom living, by implication from chapter 4, will be life lived which demonstrates the rule of God over disciples and which lives out the original vision of creation of humanity being in loving harmony with one another.
Even just a few living in this way will be like salt in food: its presence makes a difference to the food. A little light (even a few disciples living in the kingdom way) destroys a lot of darkness. Living saltily and lightfully will draw people to praise God.
We could pause right here in our sermon and ask of ourselves as well as of our hearers, Does anyone in our community/workplace/sports club know that we are Christians? What is different about our lives which demonstrates the rule of God over us and which offers a sign of creation being restored?
In similar vein we could tackle 5:17-20 (on which, we remember, books have been written). If we go back to what the 'law or the prophets' (v. 17) were about, they were not about Israel living by a random set of strange rules, the stranger the better for demonstrating how faithful Israel was to a strange God. No! They were on about Israel living in a fallen world a community life in which people sought to live harmoniously with one another while honouring the rule of God over their lives, with the plus that some rules provided for ways of restoration (of people to God and to one another) when things went wrong). The prophets often made the point that one other thing could go wrong with trying to live in this way: the rules might be misunderstood so that the comparatively tiny ones (e.g. about the finer points of ceremony) could outweigh the actually important ones (like living justly and treating others mercifully).
With this in mind we could understand 5:17-20 in this way: Jesus is saying that the vision for life underlying the law and the prophets was his vision too. Accordingly he has not come to change anything about the law and the prophets as they relate to living under God's rule and to living in harmony with one another. We need to put those italicised words into the picture because clearly Jesus did change some rules (e.g. about clean/unclean foods).
What we then find Jesus doing in 5:21 and following is not undo the law but to intensify it. Looking ahead to just one such treatment, re murder, 5:21-22, Jesus affirms that murder is wrong (it dishonours God who has made each of us equal in his sight; it (obviously) breaks harmony in society) and then goes beyond that. Hatred of another also dishonours God and disrupts social harmony.
Back to 5:13-20. Jesus can end this section by saying the disciples' righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees (see also 'You must be perfect' at the end of chapter 6) because life in the kingdom is no less a vision for living under the rule of God and for living in harmony with one another than the vision that drives the scribes and the Pharisees to live as they do.
What is (and could or should be) interesting about the weeks ahead in Matthew's Gospel is asking the question, what difference does Jesus make to these two ways to live out the same vision?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)