Resourcing Preaching and Worship Down Under: February 2023

Sunday, February 26, 2023

Sunday 5 March 2023 - Lent 2

Theme(s): gospel of grace / inclusiveness of the gospel / Jesus the Beloved Son / the cross of glory and shame / the glory of Christ / being born again / being born of water and the Spirit.

'For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or his descendants through the law but through righteousness of faith.'

That is, in the context of arguments between Jews and Christians and between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians about the significance of the law of Moses after the coming of Christ, Paul points out that the great promise of God to Israel made to their father Abraham was made to one who lived apart from the law but was counted righteous by God because of his faith.

Paul is saying that the gospel of grace has its roots in the story of Abraham. As a Jew and Jewish Christian he reaches into the story of Israel in order to assert the superiority of the gospel. His argument rests on going further back into that story than to Moses. He goes to the founding father of Israel himself, Abraham.

There is then a related point which is made and worth noting here. Through verses 16-17 Paul works in the theme of inclusion. If faith in God is more important than works of the law (1-5) then to whom does the promise of God to Abraham apply? Answer: the promise applies 'to all his descendants' but these are not confined to 'adherents of the law' (i.e. Jews) (16). No, the promise applies 'also to those who share the faith of Abraham' (16), that is, to all who believe in Jesus Christ, Jews and Gentiles, Israelites and Romans, Greeks and barbarians.

GOSPEL CHOICE ONE
Matthew 17:1-9 - The Transfiguration [also possible on 6 August which this year is a Sunday].

The Transfiguration at first sight is an odd reading for the Season of Lent (why not in the Season of Epiphany?). Yet it is an event in the journey of Jesus to the cross.

(And, as an aside, if we read the alternative gospel, John 3:1-17, then we meet Jesus talking about his heavenly experiences (compare with the "transfiguring" of Jesus into a heavenly kind of figure) and connecting them to the cross).

In particular Jesus says to the disciples at the end of the Matthean passage,

"Tell no one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

That is our clue (and cue) to think about how this reading sheds light on the cross and resurrection.

One insight is shared by N.T. (Tom) Wright in Matthew for Everyone (Part 2 Chapters 16-28), pp. 14-15: the transfiguration is the story of Jesus being glorified on a mountain, clothes shining white, between two great figures of Israel, Moses and Elijah and declared God's Son by God himself whereas the cross is the story of Jesus being shamed on a hill, stripped of his clothes, flanked between two bandits and declared God's Son by a Roman centurion.

Wright writes,

'The mountain-top explains the hill-top - and vice versa. Perhaps we only really understand either of them when we see it side by side with te other. Learn to see the glory in the cross; learn to see the cross in the glory; and you will have begun to bring together the laughter and the tears of the God who hides in the cloud, the God who is to be known in the strange person of Jesus himself' (p. 15).

Another insight flows from recognising the parallel between the divine affirmation in 17:5 and the divine affirmation at the baptism of Jesus, Matthew 3:17.

If the death and resurrection of a mortal man mean anything (noting that thousands were crucified by the Romans, and that resurrection from the dead was not unique to Jesus (compare the son of the widow of Nain and Lazarus)) then that is due to a specific, special person within the plan of God being killed and raised to new life.

At both baptism and transfiguration the special status of Jesus is disclosed and confirmed: Jesus is 'my Son, the Beloved' (5). Here in the transfiguration, alongside Moses and Elijah, representing the revelation of God in the law and the prophets respectively, Jesus is declared God's voice for Israel, 'Listen to him' (5) As Moses and Elijah were set apart by God for special purposes in God's plan for the world, so is Jesus. But only Jesus is 'my Son, the Beloved' so one who is greater than Moses or Elijah is present.

Later, down from the mountain, the disciples will enquire further. Their questions about Elijah (an enigmatic figure at that time as expectations ran that Elijah would return to rescue Israel from its imperial oppression) elicit from Jesus an interpretation of John the Baptist: he was Elijah returned. But Jesus goes on to point out that just as John suffered, so also he will suffer.

Thus, unlike Moses and Elijah whom God took to himself (the former at the point of death and the latter without death), Jesus will suffer before rising to God in the resurrection-and-ascension.

GOSPEL CHOICE TWO

This note added, Sunday 8 March 2020:
2020 special insight - I never knew this, but apparently for year A in the three year cycle, A, B, C, the readings for Lent 2, 3, 4, 5 are focused on individual encounters Jesus has (so this week Nicodemus, next week, the Samaritan woman at the well, the week after next week, the man born blind (which in John 9 is a significant encounter with Jesus), then in Lent 5 (Passion Sunday), Jesus and Lazarus. This comment, by Andy Burnham, offers an ancient explanation for these readings: "In Year A the readings shadow the teaching and enlightenment of those to be baptised or confirmed at the Easter Vigil. This set of readings is privileged in the sense that, in the Catholic Church at least, they may be used also in Years B and C"
In other words, as we journey as a congregation through these readings and these weeks building up towards Easter, we are taking an ancient journey that many catechumenates preparing for baptism at the East Vigil have taken through two millennia.

John 3:1-17 Nicodemus meets Jesus

Lots of Christians know John 3:16 by heart, "For God so loved the world that ..." but how many of us know the story within which this verse occurs? That story, featuring a Jewish leader named Nicodemus is intriguing in various ways.

First, Nicodemus is a Pharisee yet Pharisees in many gospel stories are opponents of Jesus. Nicodemus clearly sees something in Jesus which makes him both to personally visit Jesus in order to ask him questions. Noting that he visits "by night" (2), we might surmise that Nicodemus is taking a risk visiting Jesus in the face of antagonism against Jesus by Nicodemus' colleagues.

Secondly, Jesus "plays" with Nicodemus. When Nicodemus begins by flattering Jesus, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God" (2), Jesus responds by talking about a new birth (more of which below) and the impossibility of seeing God's kingdom without it (3). Nicodemus was not expecting that! When Jesus explains more about the new birth (verses 5-8), Nicodemus is reduced to expostulating, "How can these things be?" (9) So Jesus "plays" Nicodemus more: "You are a teacher of Israel and you don't know these things?" [10, CEB] That is not very fair (or "fair") of Jesus because if Nicodemus knew these things he wouldn't be bothering Jesus with his questions; and why should Nicodemus know these things when they were only now being revealed by Jesus?

Thirdly, Jesus' point here is not that Nicodemus is ignorant but that he needs to catch up with what God is doing through Jesus. The miraculous signs (2) which have drawn Nicodemus to speculate that Jesus comes from God are a taste of what God is really up to - lifting Jesus up on the cross, see verse 14-15 - and thus, once again, in John's Gospel, we, the readers, are drawn into facing the mystery of God's work in the One who is the Word made flesh (1:14).

What then is this talk about new birth all about? Let's note what Jesus (and also Nicodemus) says:
- "no one can see the kingdom of God without being born anothen" (3)
- [Nicodemus understands this as: "How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother's womb and be born?" (4)]
- "no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit." (5)
- "What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit" (6)
- "Do not be astonished that I said to you, "You must be born anothen." The wind blows where it chooses, and hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes.. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit." (8)

The Greek word transliterated here, anothen, has a double meaning and it could best to think of this word as being both things simultaneously rather than choosing one over another:
- anew or again
- from above
Hence the famous "You must be born again" but also, in some translations in the main body of the text rather than in the footnotes, "You must be born from above."

Either way, Jesus is talking about a new beginning (born again/anew) initiated by God (born from above) - a new spiritual birth, "born of the Spirit," into a new life.

Twice here, verses 3 and 5, Jesus talks about the kingdom of God - the new thing God is doing in the world, according to the Synoptic Gospels - and this new spiritual birth is critical and vital to being able "to see the kingdom of God" and to being able to "enter the kingdom of God."

But these are the last times in this gospel that the phrase "the kingdom of God" is used. From now on - see verse 15 - John's Jesus will speak about "eternal life" so, in a significant way, the birth anew or from above is, indeed, a birth into life - the eternal or never ending life of the one in whom God dwells, which will not be defeated by death.

But who can bring knowledge of this new birth and new life to earth? Only the one who has "descended from heaven, the Son of Man" (13). This secret of heaven, in other words, comes from heaven, via One - identified with the man Jesus of Nazareth - who has been dwelling in heaven. In speaking in this way, John's Jesus speaks with words familiar to Jews and Christians in the first century who both read the Book of Daniel and other related books known as "apocalyptic literature." We won't stop here to look further into this.

Finally, we get to verses 16 and 17 which make a lot of sense following on from verse 15 because the key, from the human perspective, about eternal life is that there is belief. Through believing in Jesus we may have eternal life (verses 15 and 16) and be "saved through him" (17).

From a catechumanel perspective, Nicodemus represents the enquirer who is fairly close in current belief and practice to Jesus, but not yet in the kingdom of God; perhaps even coming to Jesus from the shadows of current community and not in full openness. Jesus draws this enquirer to face squarely the need for new, spiritual birth into the kingdom of God which is eternal life.

Monday, February 20, 2023

Sunday 26 February 2023 - Lent 1

Theme(s): Facing temptation / Prayer and Fasting / Confronting sin through Christ / Study God's Word to resist the Devil

Sentence: Lord be gracious to us; we long for you. Be our strength every morning; our salvation in time of distress (Isaiah 33:2)

Collect:

Almighty God,
your Son Jesus Christ fasted forty days in the wilderness;
give us grace to direct our lives in obedience to your Spirit;
and as you know our weakness
so may we know your power to save;
through Jesus Christ our redeemer. Amen.

Readings:

Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-7
Psalm 32
Romans 5:12-19
Matthew 4:1-11

Commentary:

Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-7

Some controversy attends the story popularly known as 'the Fall' because, in an age of evolutionary understanding of the history of life, it appears incredible that Christians could subscribe to a view which seemingly requires us to believe that no death occurred in nature after Creation until the Fall.

Further, the way the story of the Fall is told, it can be read as a story which contributes to the subjection of women to men (cf. 1 Timothy 2:12-15). Neither space nor time permit an extensive reflection on such controversies here - probably sermons this Sunday do not permit that either, limited as most preachers are by time! So the following approach to this passage acknowledges such controversies while largely sidestepping them ...

In the big story of the world, told through Scripture in terms of the world's relationship to God the Creator, the story of the Fall marks and acknowledges a very simple fact about human life: we sin, we stuff up, we get things wrong, we fail, we let God, others and ourselves down. From sin flows pain and sorrow. Every day in the news media we are confronted with evidence of this simple fact. Likely everyday in our homes, workplaces and shopping malls we are confronted with evidence of this same fact. "You said you would ...". "I didn't realise when you said X that you actually wanted me to ..."

In Scripture this simple fact of life closes the door to the first part of the story of the world, the story of the Creator creating the world, and opens the door to the next part, the Creator becoming the Redeemer to redeem the world. In the latter story the Redeemer undoes the effects of the Fall (forgive sin, heal pain, turn sorrow into joy) and begins the restoration of the world to what God intended the created world to be, a place of perfect fellowship between God and humanity and between human people.

To retell this part of the story today, the first Sunday in Lent, is to acknowledge that we (once again) journey with Jesus to the cross which is the culminating action of God the Redeemer, and beyond the cross to the resurrection which is the inaugurating action of God the Healer of fallen Creation.

Psalm 32

If we take seriously the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross because of our wrong-doing, then we will take seriously our sinful, fallen nature - our part in, our responsibility for the state of the world.

When we acknowledge our sin we cannot be seriously concerned about that if we do nothing. To do something about our sin is to be penitent, active in repentance in which our lives turn from sin to holy living.

Psalm 32 is a penitential psalm which captures neatly the stress of continuing in unrepented sin while charting the happy state of those without imputed sin, who live lives attuned to God's ways.

Romans 5:12-19

One way to understand this passage is to understand it as Paul's account of what I have tried to express above in my comments about the Genesis reading for today: the big picture story of the world in relationship to God is Creation, Fall, Redemption.

In Paul's account he draws in the symmetry of the fall through 'one man' (12), specifically named as 'Adam' (14), and salvation through 'the one man, Jesus Christ' (15, 17). He also names two parts to the period in which 'death exercised dominion' following the fall (14), the period from Adam to Moses when there was sin without the law (13-14) and the period from Moses to Jesus Christ when sin continued, with the law (given by God to Israel via Moses) intended to constrain sin actually having 'the result that the trespass multiplied' (20).

(Note, as an aside, that Paul writing in 1 Timothy 2:12-15, mentioned above, can focus on the role Eve played in the dynamics between the snake, Adam and Eve, but here subsumes Adam and Eve as a couple into 'one man', presumably to make the symmetry re Jesus Christ: through one man came sin, through one man came salvation.)

In the battle between good and evil, between life and death, between sin and righteousness, Paul here states clearly, carefully (i.e. logically) and conclusively (i.e. no Christian need be in any doubt about the matter) that goodness, life and righteousness are the winners. Sin abounds, but grace abounds more (15, 20). Death exercised dominion but now righteousness and life (17) as well as grace exercise dominion (21).

All this comes about because 'at the right time Christ died for the ungodly' (6). So we journey through Lent with Jesus to the cross, not because we celebrate suffering and sacrifice for its own sake, but because through the cross comes life.

Matthew 4:1-11

Lent as a period of 40 days relates precisely to this period of testing in Jesus' own life (2). But that period itself is an analogy of Israel's 40 years in the wilderness as it journeyed towards the Promised Land. In both periods, 40 days / 40 years, there were tests and tribulations. Would Israel trust in God (for water, for food, for healing, for conquest of their Promised Land)? Will Jesus' trust in God?

In these verses in Matthew we learn of Jesus' own tests and tribulations. First, the general test of fasting and ending up in a famished state (2). Then, secondly, the particular tribulations at the hands of the tempter (who appears to intentionally test or tempt Jesus when he is weak rather than strong, verses 3-10).

Clearly Jesus is tempted on matters concerning his messiahship, here focused in Matthew's telling on the matter of his title and status as 'the Son of God' (3, 6). What better way to be acclaimed as Messiah than through a miracle concerning food or a dramatic rescue which fulfilled ancient prophecy (3-7). Jesus is resolute, so the tempter a.k.a the devil (5) or Satan (10) tries a third and final time to tempt Jesus to submit to his rather than to God's authority. In this third temptation Jesus is offered, literally, the world (8-11). Not just Israel would be his domain.

The fact that Jesus rebuts and rejects these temptations shows us that his messiahship will not be expressed in a worldly way (courting popularity, demonstrating powerfulness).

Apart from that lesson, what might Christian disciples learn from the example of their Teacher?

An important observation is that Jesus rejects the voice of the devil with the word(s) of God: 'it is written' (4, 7, 10). Indeed one of the citations is a citation about the word(s) of God,

"One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God" (4).

The power to live a holy life draws on the power of God's written Word in Scripture. Knowledge of the truth counters the lies and deceptions of the devil. Obedience to God's laws gives life which obedience to the devil's lures would not. Jesus trusts God and trusts the promises of God made to him via the written Word of God.

If Lent is a period for fasting, it is also a period for study of God's Word.

Sunday, February 12, 2023

Sunday 19 February 2023 - Ordinary 7

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:

Bountiful God,
you send the sun and rain to the righteous and unrighteous.
Let your grace fall upon your people,
enable us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us,
so that we may truly be your children.
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
[slightly abbreviated from NZL 2017, p. 40]

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 is 'God's temple' (16-17). The extension is that if the foundation is Jesus Christ and if the work of apostles is that of builders constructing a new temple on that foundation (where "apostles" = church planters/builders, both ancient and modern, both the Twelve (+Paul) and the likes of Apollos and more recent days, say, Marsden, Ruatara, the Williams brothers and Bishop Selwyn), 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) about a very specific form of holy building:

'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 (concluding) 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 that God wants to give you and not settle for one thing (or one leader): 'all belong to you' (22).

Matthew 5:38-48

This passage is so well-known through the generations of its readers that 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 full 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, and instead 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 in which grace touches everyone, including evildoers and enemies.

Note of explanation:

Matthew 5:43 gives an impression that Jesus is quoting an OT text which says Love your neighbour but hate your enemy. No such text exists. (E.g. check Leviticus 19:18).

On the one hand Jesus doesn't say "It is written" but talks about what people have heard.

On the other hand there are passages in the OT which speak of hating one's enemies (e.g. Psalm 139:21). And there is a contemporary text from the Qumran or Dead Sea Scrolls which explicitly teaches hatred of enemies (1 QS 1:4; 10-11; 9:21-26). Of course we also read in Luke's Gospel, in the section in which the Parable of the Good Samaritan occurs, 10:35-48, that Jesus and his hearers lived in a world where there were enemies and it was a jolting surprise on the hearers' part that Jesus should teach that a hated enemy was to be loved as a neighbour.

Sunday, February 5, 2023

Sunday 12 February 2023 - Ordinary 6

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). In other words, whatever our feelings in the 21st century about shades of grey versus black and white as we understand the times in which we live, ancient Israel, as its writings were compiled, edited and finalised into what we Christians read as the Old Testament, looked back on its history as a nation once blessed and now cursed. No greys!

Psalm 119:1-8

Famously nearly* 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, eager to be an obedient citizen of the kingdom of heaven.

*Can you find the exceptions? Reputedly there are two!

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 over two hundred years 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.

Where does the real credit for the success of the apostolic mission in Corinth (or Aotearoa New Zealand) lie? With God: 'but God gave the growth' (6).

Thus, Paul 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 (unconsciously) 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? Surely the power of God at work in the world is no less today than two thousand years ago!

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 frank), 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. In the language of yesteryear, 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, I need to stop watching TV and trawling the internet. To cease shoplifting, I need 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. The opposite of thieving in the kingdom is more than the cessation of stealing, it is generosity and sharing of material goods.

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?

Pages