Sunday 10 November 2024 - Ordinary 32

Theme(s): Spiritual modesty versus showing off / True devotion to God / Finality and completeness of Christ's sacrifice

Sentence: Christ has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26)

Collect:

God our desire and our judge,

we look for your coming and know that when we meet you

we will have to account for our lives.

Assist us to live so we are ready to greet our Lord with joy,

fully prepared for the feast which lasts forever.

We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit one God now and for ever. Amen

Readings (related):

1 Kings 17:8-16
Psalm 146
Hebrews 9:24-28
Mark 12:38-44

Comments:

1 Kings 17:8-16

This story has obvious connection with the second part of the gospel passage: 'a widow' with very meagre resources, indeed with the last food in her house, after which she faces death, is asked by Elijah to use all those resources in the service of God.

In this story - unlike in the gospel story - we find out what happens when the widow gives all she has. Instead of the last of the food in her pantry running out, 'she as well as he and her household ate for many days' (15). In fact, 

'The jar of meal was not emptied, neither did the jug of oil fail, according to the word of the Lord that he spoke by Elijah' (16).

Many of God's people have told similar stories since: with God's power a little has gone a long way, and God's provisions for our needs have never failed. In this context we see relevant background to the petition in the Lord's Prayer, "Give us today our daily bread."

Psalm 146

The perfect psalm to go with our Old Testament and Gospel passages!

Hebrews 9:24-28

Hebrews is a fascinating book for many reasons.

One reason is that while on the face of it, the author is a Christian engaging with the Old Testament and (so to speak) bringing it up to date in understanding in respect of Christ as its fulfilment, there is another engagement going on which is not quite so obvious. The former is obvious because lots of Old Testament passages, characters and themes are either directly cited or indirectly alluded to. The latter is not so obvious because the author never says, 'As Plato once wrote.' 

The not so obvious engagement is with a theme in ancient Greek philosophy, associated with Plato and possibly mediated into the world of Christian-and-Jewish thinking by a Greek speaking Jewish theologian/philosopher based in Alexandria, called Philo. That theme is the true nature of 'reality': what we see and touch here on earth tempts us to think of it as ('concrete', physical) reality but, Plato argued, it is not reality, but only a copy of shadow of the reality which exists in another world. Thus here in verse 24 the writer betrays this kind of thinking when he writes that

'Christ did not enter a sanctuary made by human hands, a mere copy of the true one, but he entered heaven itself.'

The 'tent' (or 'tabernacle') discussed in previous verses, entered by ordinary high priests, was not the real tent/tabernacle of God. That one exists in heaven and not on earth, and it is that one that Christ the extraordinary high priest has entered (24). (Note also verse 23, not part of our designated passages which speaks of the cleansing of the tent/tabernacle through prescribed ritual as 'sketches of the heavenly things'.)

Whether or not we now think it helpful to think in Platonic terms of plural worlds, one of which is a copy or shadow or sketch of the other, we can follow the writer of Hebrews in terms of what Christ has achieved through his death on the cross. When we understand this as a high priestly action of sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins we see it as a superior action relative to the sacrifices of the ordinary high priests. That is, we understand this is about an action not simply 'better' but also now 'final - no further sacrifices required.'

In that sense, the most real or substantive sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins is the sacrifice of Jesus.

The remainder of the passage, 25-28, reinforces the finality and completeness of Christ's sacrifice in terms which do not invoke Platonic underpinnings. The language has been deeply influential in some eucharistic prayers (notably that in the Book of Common Prayer and, with reference to the New Zealand Anglican church's prayer book (1989), that found on pp. 436ff).

Thus:
- 'nor was it to offer himself again and again' (25)
- 'he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself' (26)
- 'so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin, but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him' (28).

Incidentally, in a past comment about Hebrews 7:23-28 I wrote this:

"Verse 25 is straightforward in one way: Jesus saves those who approach God through him. In another way it is enigmatic and has given rise to various theological developments: the words 'since he always lives to make intercession for them' has raised questions about the relationship between our time and heavenly time and thus led to consideration that in certain ways the sacrifice of Jesus (as a form of 'intercession' that people might be saved) is continually 're-presented' before God, with the possible implication - much argued over - that when we celebrate the eucharist we may properly 're-present' the sacrifice of Jesus, the earthly mirroring the heavenly."

That is, Hebrews 7:23-28 opens up the possibility that our eucharistic actions here on earth in some way connect with the sacrifice of Jesus which is eternally present in the heavenly realm.

But Hebrews 9:24-28 firmly and very clearly reminds us that the sacrifice of Jesus was and remains, at least from our time perspective, a one off, never to be repeated and never needing to be repeated event. By all means we may explore - with all our human limitations - the relationship between 'history' (human, earthbound, chronologically sequential events) and 'eternity' (divine, heavenly, all history being present to God). But we should take care in our eucharistic language never to diminish the uniqueness of the one sacrifice of Jesus on the cross: in one action Jesus did what all other repeated actions did not accomplish. No repetition is required. Our eucharistic language should always bear witness to the singularity of the event of the cross.

In respect of application of this passage to our lives, we might usefully reflect on the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice: all has been done to remove our guilt, to ensure the forgiveness of our sins and to provide the way of new and holy life. There is no further theological assurance required though some of us may need - through prayer and spiritual counsel - further psychological assurance.

Mark 12:38-44

When we find a passage such as this has two distinct parts, 38-40 and 41-42, it is worth asking why they are joined together (at least in the sense that one follows the other).

On the face of it a warning to 'Beware of the scribes who like to ...' and a commendation 'Truly I tell you, this poor widow ...' are not connected. But if we first observe the wording of each part we find at least one common word, 'widow' (40, 42). That may be enough to connect two such passages because we can imagine that as the first Christians transmitted sayings and stories of Jesus to one another they connected two or more pieces of the overall story via common words, sometimes called 'catchwords.' That is, the catchword aided the memory of the re-teller of Jesus' stories and sayings, as though we might say, even in our day, "Jesus told a story about .... widows .... Speaking of widows, I also recall that Jesus said this about ... widows ...".

Putting it colloquially we are invited to imagine one Christian telling others about the time when Jesus warned against the scribes and 'Oh, speaking of widows, that reminds me of the story of a poor widow Jesus once saw putting the last of her money into the collection plate.'

(Additionally we note that 'scribes' have been mentioned in preceding passages, 12:28-34 and 12:35-37).

Secondly, however, we can also reflect on the thematic content of the passages and see at least one further connection. The scribes of 38-40 are show offs. They do good works and make sure people know it. But behind these outward scenes they scandalously 'devour widows' house' (40). By contrast, when people see the ostentatious rich people putting large sums into the temple treasury (41), Jesus sees one who puts in virtually nothing, is not a show off, has ripped off no one and in fact is one of the widows, and he sees more deeply that she 

'has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury' (43). 

If 'widow' provides a catchword connection between the two parts, then the contrasting themes of 'showing off' and 'modesty' provide another connection.

We can readily understand the condemnation of the show off scribes but we likely would like to know how they devoured widow's houses. We can also readily understand the commendation of the widow: the rich have given a proportion of their wealth but the widow has given 'everything' (44); they have 'contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty' (44) but we might like to know more about what the 'treasury' funded.

Devouring widow's houses

One line of thinking, represented in the New Annotated Oxford Bible, suggests the scribes induced widows 'to give their meagre resources to the Temple'. This makes sense and receives some support by the presence of the next passage, 12:41-44. But a recent, 2012, commentary by French scholar Camille Focant, The Gospel According to Mark: A Commentary (Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick), makes the point 

'it is not easy to see what specific practices the criticism could make reference to' (p. 511). 

Focant canvases views of various commentators but finds their speculations are not backed up by contemporary evidence. It would appear that we simply accept that Jesus knew that scribes in some way or another preyed on the vulnerability of widows and consumed their 'houses' (i.e. resources available to them after the death of their husbands). The destruction of the temple soon to be forecast in Mark 13:1-2 seals their fate.

Treasury

Focant (see above), p. 518, says that Mark is referring to

 'one of the thirteen chests in which people deposited their offerings. They were narrow at the base and large at the top, which gave them the form of a trumpet.' 

On each chest the 

'destination of the gifts was written in Aramaic.'

Application?

The contrast between the modest widow and the show off scribes and show off rich folks suggests that Mark tells us this story as an example for disciples. The total commitment of the woman is in keeping with the total commitment of Jesus himself. The application is at least twofold:

(a) in keeping with (e.g. Matthew 6:1-4), we should avoid the example of the show offs and do our works of devotion to God with modesty;

(b) proportionate giving no doubt contributes to the work of God in the world, but God longs for signs that we are wholly committed to the kingdom.

Sunday 3 November 2024 - Ordinary 31 or All Saints Transferred

Ordinary 31 - treated briefly on assumption that many parishes will transfer All Saints to this Sunday

Readings (related):

Deut 6:1-9 

Ps 119:1-8 

Heb 9:11-14 

Mark 12:28-34

The commandments of God for humanity are a significant part of Scripture (if we think about the sheer quantum of commandments and related narratives in the Pentateuch (e.g. Deuteronomy 6:1-9), in the Psalms (e.g. Psalm 119:1-8) and in the New Testament (e.g. an epistle such as Hebrews, within which a passage such as today's verses illuminate how Christ as high priest fulfils (and "how much more") the law concerning priesthood and sacrifice.

But we can also say, "quality" versus "quantity" because the commandments of God concern the relationship between God and humanity, God commands, we obey, our relationship is good when we understand the commandments and obey them.

Whether we are in Old Testament writings or New Testament writings, the question of God's commands and our obedience to them is critical to our salvation, our well-being now as human beings and our well-being through time and beyond time as human beings-in-fellowship-with-God.

So the scribe in Mark 12:28 asks a question on behalf of all humanity, not only on behalf of the scribes and other Jewish groups passionately concerned with the commandments of God in the time of Jesus.

Jesus answers expansively compared to Deuteronomy 6:1-9 by incorporating a summary of all human-human oriented commandments with his, "The second is this" (12:31).

But Jesus also answers "prophetically" (or, we might say, radically) because (as the scribe recognises in 12:32-33), by focusing on "Love your neighbour as yourself" as the second commandment to the first, he appreciates the value of attitude to and treatment of fellow human beings (which flows from the heart) and depreciates the importance of making external sacrifices (which may only flow from the wallet or other resources for providing the sacrifices).

In doing this, Jesus stands with the prophets (e.g. Hosea 6:6) who had also critiqued a focus on sacrifices at the Temple compared (often) with lack of attention to matters of justice.

I must close this comment here for reasons of time but acknowledge that there is much more to be said on this remarkable passage, including the specifics of the words of the scribe and Jesus' assessment of those words.

All Saints

Theme(s): All Saints / God's holy people / God's new and exciting future for all God's people

Sentence: Know what is the hope to which God has called you, what are the riches of the glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of God's power in us who believe. (Ephesians 1:18-19)

Collect:

Eternal God,
you have always taken men and women
of every nation, age and colour
and made them saints;
like them, transformed,
like them, baptised in Jesus' name,take us to share your glory. Amen.

Readings:

Isaiah 25:6-9

Psalm 24:1-6

Revelation 21:1-6a

John 11:32-44

Comments:

Isaiah 25:6-9

This passage is background to the Revelation passage below. It looks ahead to what the seer of Revelation 21:1-6 sees.

In the Isaiah passage the future new world for the saints of God is seen in an especially lovely way in verse 6:

' ... a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wines, of rich food filled with marrow, of well-aged wines strained clear.'

Perhaps it is just as well this is a metaphorical attempt to envisage the unknown and unknowable future: the extravagance of the feast - if literally true - does not sound the best of things to do in respect of arteries, heart and liver!

Psalm 24:1-6

Saints are sanctified people, holy persons. In gospel terms, all those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are made holy through Christ's death on the cross which cleanses us from sin. 

Whatever view we have about offering the title 'St.' to an especially revered person, we should be clear: saints are you and me (as well as St Peter, St Mary, St Francis, St Teresa and so on). To be a saint - saved and sanctified by Jesus - is to be a person who can answer the question in verse 3 of this psalm:

'Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place?'

The psalmist's answer is

'Those who have clean hands and pure hearts, who do not lift up their souls to what is false, and do not swear deceitfully' (4).

The gospel says that we are blessed by the Lord and our salvation is assured on the basis of what Christ has done for us and then expects that we will live a life worthy of that blessing and that salvation. Such a life is a holy life, a life lived with clean hands and pure heart,

Revelation 21:1-6a

The celebration of 'all saints' is a celebration of what is coming as much as it is a celebration of what has come to pass (that all God's people, past and present, belong in one fellowship, unbroken by death - see below).

What is coming is a full fellowship of the departed and the living, of the resurrected and the yet to be resurrected saints in one 'space.' So John in his final vision sees that 'space' which he describes as 'a new heaven and a new earth' (1) and as 'the holy city, the new Jerusalem' (2). In this new 'space' all the saints dwell with God, 'they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them' (3); there will be no more separation brought on by death, for 'Death will be no more' (4). This glorious and God-filled future is a sure bet, a promise we may trust because 'these words are trustworthy and true' (5).

We might, if we paused at this point in the passage, reflect on the way in which the visionary promise of the new heaven/earth/Jerusalem is a kind of glorious confusion of spaces/'spaces' merging into one new 'space' for God's people that we end up being none the wiser exactly what this location will actually be like.

Perhaps there are clouds with harp playing angels and perhaps there are not. Perhaps Revelation 4-5 (another vision, of the opened heaven centred on God's throne) is more accurate. But even that vision, on close inspection has its obscurities, since what God looks like is very obscure (4:3) and will we really see Jesus as the seven-horned lamb with seven eyes (5:6)? What is easier to grasp is that in this 'space' some things will be so and some not: in particular, no death, no mourning, no pain and no tears (21:4). A good space then to which we can look forward, without worrying whether we like harp music or not, or whether God has a "face" which we will "see"!

Lastly, we reflect on 6a:

'Then he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end."

How can what is yet to be, already be 'done'?

Throughout Revelation, somewhat muted, is a recurring theme of Christ's victory over sin and its effects through the shedding of his blood on the cross. That past victory, around 30 or 33 AD, is the work that needs doing for the new Jerusalem to be the place in which death etc is no more. And that work is done! The words are 'trustworthy and true' because what needs to be done has actually taken place.

That the full realization of that achievement is yet to be is not in doubt because God-in-Christ is 'the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end,' that is, the Lord of time has the future sorted as much as the past.

John 11:32-44

I am approaching this reading as a reading for 'All Saints' and not as a reading in a sequence of readings in John's Gospel, for which we might approach the passage in terms of the connections between the resurrection of Lazarus and the resurrection of Jesus, the provocation of this miracle in the run up to Jesus' arrest and trial and so forth.

From the perspective of 'All Saints' we read this passage as an invitation to believe in the resurrection of the saints.

We all face death, we all grieve the death of loved ones, and we all fear aspects of death, including the prosaic, but real fact that if we do not do something about burying the dead, there will be an awful stench (39).

Mary and Martha understand the reality of death (33) but they also understand the power of Jesus (23-27). He could have prevented this death (32). Surely there is nothing he can do now? Even Jesus himself weeps (35). Rolling back the stone (39a) won't do anything except reveal the stench (39b). Jesus presses the point he wishes to make: do the sisters truly believe in him? (40) He proceeds to call on God and Lazarus is raised from the dead (41-44). The sisters have their brother back.

The point of the passage is not whether we would see more resurrections of loved ones if we (really/truly/definitely) believe. The point is that God working through Jesus has power over death. Death is no longer the end of life. Thus we are invited to believe in the resurrection of the saints. They are alive with the Lord in heaven even as we, in another way, are alive with the Lord on earth.

"All the saints" means all those who live in relationship with Jesus Christ: the departed and the living, the dead-but-now-raised and those alive today. Death does not break down our fellowship with the saints. Today we join their celebration of resurrection life and their example inspires us to continue faithfully walking by faith towards our full life with them when time ends and complete fellowship with God begins. 

Sunday 27 October 2024 - Ordinary 30

Theme(s): Healing / Restoration / Intercession / Faith & Following

Sentence: When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream. Then our mouth was filled with laughter, and tongue with shouts of joy (Psalm 126:1-2)

Collect:

God of love,
your Son teaches us the heart of the law.
Open our minds, souls and hearts to discern what you ask of us.
Empower us to love you with our whole being,
to love our neighbour as ourselves and thus fulfil your law.
We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit one God now and for ever. Amen.

Readings (related):

Jeremiah 31:7-9
Psalm 126
Hebrews 7:23-28
Mark 10:46-52

Comments:

Jeremiah 31:7-9

In the background to the coming of Jesus as the Messiah, as 'Son of David' (see gospel reading below), are a series of visions of glorious, better days for Israel.This passage is one of those visions. The Lord speaks through Jeremiah of a return of the 'remnant of Israel' (i.e. of those scattered by exile, 7). Among them will be 'the blind and the lame' (8). The healing story in today's gospel is a fulfilment of this vision.

Psalm 126

Ditto for this psalm is much of the comment above re the Jeremiah passage. Here is another vision of 'When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion' (1). 

The psalm is a little complicated because the first verses seem to presume the restoration has occurred and the last verses (from verse 4) seem to be praying for restoration. An explanation is that a partial restoration has occurred (e.g. when the first exiles in Babylon returned to Judea) but there are more to come and so the prayer is for the restoration to be completed.

Hebrews 7:23-28

We need to approach each passage of Hebrews through these weeks - noting that sometimes significant omissions have occurred between passages - recalling that the overall argument of this epistle is that Jesus is superior to all significant people in ancient and recent Israel's history (e.g. Moses) and his roles (Son of God, great High priest) are more significant roles within Israel than the angels, than the high priests etc.

Since last week's Hebrews 5 passage (which introduced the priesthood of Melchizedek) the writer has:
(1) warned of the peril of falling away (5:11-6:12);
(2) discussed the making of oaths, with special reference to Abraham and come back to Melchizedek and the fact of Jesus being a high priest in the order of Melchizedek (6:13-20);
(3) described the ministry of Melchizedek (in glowing terms), pointed out that the priesthood of Melchizedek is greater than the priesthood of Levi (i.e. the priesthood of the temple of Israel, 7:1-10); and
(4) reiterated the point of the stronger priesthood through Melchizedek such that, 7:22, 

'Jesus has also become the guarantee of a better covenant' (7:11-22).

Thus we can read and, hopefully, understand our passage today.

Essentially the passage summarises the perfections of Jesus' priesthood:
- he is a permanent priest 'because he continues forever', 24, contrasted with the mortal lives of Israel's priests;
- 'he is able for all time to save those who approach God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them' (25);
- he is 'holy, blameless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens' (26);
- he has 'no need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for those of the people' because 'this he did once for all when he offered himself' (27);
- he is 'a Son who has been made perfect forever' (28).

A song of praise would be an appropriate ending to the sermon based on this passage!

Note that verse 27 uses language which the Book of Common Prayer Holy Communion service takes up.

Verse 25 is straightforward in one way: Jesus saves those who approach God through him.

In another way this verse is enigmatic and has given rise to various theological developments: the words 'since he always lives to make intercession for them' has raised questions about the relationship between our time and heavenly time (or, indeed, heavenly timelessness) and thus led to consideration that in certain ways the sacrifice of Jesus (as a form of 'intercession' that people might be saved) is continually 're-presented' before God, with the possible implication - much argued over - that when we celebrate the eucharist we may properly 're-present' the sacrifice of Jesus, the earthly sacramental action now mirroring the heavenly sacramental action which is continually present to God.

Mark 10:46-52

This is the last event in the journey of Jesus towards Jerusalem. At first glance it looks like 'another miracle' but there are aspects to consider.

When we go back to 8:22-30, we find that there is a similar healing miracle there, also healing of blindness. Scholars suggest, reasonably, that the two healing of blindness events frame the intervening material which, as we have been seeing in recent weeks, highlights the spiritual blindness of the disciples. They do not understand who Jesus is. By contrast the physically blind man in today's story has good 'spiritual' sight. He 'sees' (i.e. understands) that Jesus is 'the Son of David' (47, 48). Unlike the disciples in the most recent Sunday passage (10:35-45), the blind man wants 'mercy' from Jesus and not 'glory.'

So Jesus heeds the call for healing and responds to the spiritual sight of the man (49ff).

But Jesus does not instantly heal him. He pauses and asks a question first,

'What do you want me to do for you?'

This sounds like an oddity. Surely Jesus knew what the man wanted. His disability would have been obvious. Yet he asks the question nevertheless. We may puzzle over that, but Jesus has left all readers with an important question. When Jesus comes to us, what do we want him to do for us? He is open to us telling him!

In conclusion, note that the blind man, now physically seeing as well as spiritually seeing 

'followed him on the way' (52).

Sunday 20 October 2024 - Ordinary 29

Theme(s): Suffering, Service, Servanthood, Ransom for Many, High Priest

Sentence: For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45)

Collect:

Almighty God,

you reign over all things and have created each one of us in your own image.

Assist your people to give to earthly rulers and powers what belongs to them

and to give our allegiance and ourselves to you alone,

the one whose image is imprinted on every human soul.

We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit one God now and for ever. Amen

Readings (related):

Isaiah 53:4-12
Psalm 91:9-16
Hebrews 5:1-10
Mark 10:35-45

Comments:

Isaiah 53:4-12

We cannot read this passage too often when we are engaging with the suffering of Jesus on our behalf that we might be saved. Today's gospel involves looking ahead to Jesus' suffering. This passage in Isaiah, graphically, poetically, memorably looks ahead to that suffering.

Psalm 91:9-16

This psalm looks ahead (we say with hindsight!) to the suffering of Jesus (see today's gospel reading) and offers to Jesus (and all who suffer in his name) the promise that God will see us through our troubles, even if (as it turns out for Jesus and many martyrs since) the protection of God invoked here is protection from death's power and provision for resurrection.

Hebrews 5:1-10

The writer is now into his stride on the theme of 'high priesthood'. Verses 1-4 outline broadly what the familiar high priests of Israelite religion used to do and the general character of these high priests ('subject to weakness', 2). A characteristic of the role of high priest is that the high priest does not usurp the role, 'but takes it only when called by God, just as Aaron was' (4).

Thus Christ is introduced. Neither did Christ 'glorify himself in becoming a high priest, but was appointed ...' (5). Incidentally, we may see why there has been an anticipation of this theme in chapters 2 and 4 (last week's passage): Christ was not, in fact, in his earthly life and functioning a high priest. The high priests of his day opposed him! The two previous mentions in Hebrews function to identify for the reader that Christ had, especially through his death on the cross effectively functioned as a high priest, indeed as 'the' great high priest. So now the writer discusses Christ's special priesthood.

With reference to the appointment of Christ, the writer takes up two OT scriptures Psalm 2:7 (often taken to be referring to the appointment of the Messiah) and Psalm 110:4 (also a Messianic psalm) and joins them together to (effectively) say, Jesus the Christ = Messiah, as foretold, was also appointed to be priest in the order of Melchizedek. By verse 10 the 'priest ... according to the order of Melchizedek' becomes 'designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.' We could say the writer is being a bit slippery here, sliding from priest to high priest without further explanation. But we have already seen in chapters 2 and 4 that the specific ministry of Jesus, offering sacrifice (himself) for the sins of the whole world is the ministry of a high priest.

Melchizedek returns in Hebrews (chapter 7) so for now we simply recall him as an enigmatic character in the story of Abraham (Genesis 14:18).

What did Jesus do? Verses 7-9 outline that Jesus 'in the days of his flesh' offered 'prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death' (the Garden of Gethsemane seem to be in mind here).

These prayers were heard 'because of his reverent submission' (7). That submission was demonstrated in that, 'Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered' (8). When verse 9 goes on to say that he was 'made perfect' we recall 2:10, where perfection for Jesus was not shifting from failure to success, from sin to righteousness, but being made complete.The comment on Sunday 4 October 2015 was, 'Perfection here is about the completion of God's purposes. For the purpose of salvation Jesus needed to suffer. By suffering (in particular suffering as the ethically perfect one to become the perfect sacrifice for the sins of imperfect humanity) Jesus completed God's purposes for the world.'

In this way: submitting to the cross, being made perfect by completing God's purposes for humanity, Jesus 'became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.'

Mark 10:35-45

What ratbags James and John were! After all that Jesus has been saying in the preceding passages, about being child-like, about the first becoming last, they have the gall to come forward and ask of Jesus that he grant them to 'sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory' (37). Jesus plays along with them and does not rebuke them so much as point out that they misunderstand what they are asking for (38). But they still misunderstand (39). 

First, when Jesus talks about drinking from the cup he is about to drink from and be baptised with the baptism he is going to be baptized with (38) he is speaking of his suffering, his death through crucifixion.

Then be careful what you ask for! When John and James say, 'We are able' (39), Jesus says that they will indeed drink such a cup and be baptized with such a baptism (as indeed many Christian disciples found would be the case as they suffered persecution). Nevertheless, they are not necessarily going to end up sitting at Christ's right and left hand when the kingdom comes (40). On the one hand, humanly speaking, Jesus defers to the divine power and authority of God to make such appointment; on the other hand, we are left with something of a mystery, to whom does 'but it is for those for whom it has been prepared' refer to? (40)

Naturally the other ten disciples are none too pleased when they learn about their request. (Who leaked the memo?). But Jesus speaks to them all - after all, the anger of the ten suggests they are no less ambitious than James and John, just too slow off the mark. So verses 42-45 become some of the most influential of all Jesus' teaching: in his kingdom  we do not lord ourselves over others, we aim to be servants. The greatest ambition we can have in the kingdom is to serve all the rest and to rule over no one. The clinching point is that this is the example of Jesus' himself: 'For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve' (45).

The fuller statement at the end runs on to 'and to give his life a ransom for many' (45). It is an odd feature of the four gospels that when the epistles make so much of Jesus being redeemer, saviour, sacrifice for our sins and so forth, very few examples can be found of Jesus himself using such language. But here he does. He looks ahead to what the cup of suffering and baptism of suffering is all about: he will be 'a ransom for many' when 'he gives his life.'

Yes, we can then have a great discussion about what 'ransom' means. To whom, for example, is the ransom paid? Is it about paying the devil so the devil lets us sinners go free? In the end it may not matter whether we can push this metaphor to the point where we understand who receives the ransom. What we can see clearly is that humanity is in a bind and Jesus, as an act of sheer service to us, will release us from the bind.

Sunday 13 October 2024 - Ordinary 28

Theme(s): Wealth as a hindrance / Following Jesus unreservedly / Seeking justice / The sharp two edged sword of God.

Sentence: Satisfy us in the morning with your steadfast love, so that we may rejoice and be glad all our days (Psalm 90:14).

Collect:

Kind and generous God,

you prepare a feast for all people.

May we prepare for your banquet by putting on the garment of love

that springs from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and a genuine faith.

Help us to bring the lost and lonely, the poor and those in need

to your feast where all are fed.

We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God now and for ever. Amen

Readings (related):

Amos 5:6-7, 10-15
Psalm 90:12-17
Hebrews 4:12-16
Mark 10:17-31

Comments:

Amos 5:6-7, 10-15

We read this diatribe against those who through injustice become wealthy with half an eye on the gospel. There is a hint there, but no more than a hint, that the wealthy man may have gotten his possessions by unjust means. Either way, it is always good to be reminded, including in our world of 'inequality,' that God's will is for justice and not for injustice. For people to be treated fairly, for bribes to be refused (12) and for active 'establishment' of 'justice at the gate' (15).

Psalm 90:12-17

Wealth -looking ahead to the gospel reading - appears to satisfy but ultimately does not. True satisfaction comes from knowing God, from realising that God loves us with a 'steadfast love' (14).

Hebrews 4:12-16

The letter to Hebrews, as we opened up last week, is generally a call to Jewish Christians tempted to stray backwards from Christianity to Judaism to reconsider in the light of the arguments put forward by the writer, particularly that Jesus is superior in everyway to all possible competitors, such as angels. Last week, superior to the angels, Jesus is, this week, superior to the high priests (14-16) - although this theme will be developed in much greater detail in succeeding chapters. Between last week's reading and this, the writer has discussed Jesus in comparison to Moses (and, slightly, to Joshua, 4:8). In that discussion the theme of 'rest' was opened up. Under Moses, the people of Israel wandering in the desert had, because of grumbling, failed to enter into their 'rest', that is into the Promised Land.

In such a context, ending in 4:11 with 

'Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs', 

we try to make sense of what seems like a change of topic, in the next verses 12-13, on the 

'word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword.' 

At the very least the introduction of this topic as a kind of aside relates to what has gone before because it reminds readers whose disobedience may be private (compared with the public grumbling of Israel) that God is able to judge even 'the thoughts and intentions of the heart' (12). The judgment is via the 'word of God' meaning that what distinguishes good from bad, obedience from disobedience, wisdom from foolishness is not arbitrarily determined but rests on the word of God, the word revealed to Moses, revealed through Jesus as 'his powerful word' (1:3).

The theme of high priest has already been introduced in 2:17, in relation to offering 'a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of people.' In our passage this high priest is our example and inspiration. 

'Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession' (14). 

That is, let us not go backwards under pressure of internal false teaching or external persecution.

The source of our strength to be faithful, to hold fast includes that fact that we have a high priest who is able to sympathise with our weaknesses, tested in all respects, yet not failing by falling into sin (15). From such a priest we can receive help. Verse 16 is then one of the great promises of Scripture.

There is no comparison explicitly with the high priests of Israel but implicitly comparison is entering into the writer's presentation of Jesus: no other high priest ever offered what Jesus offers. Thus we head on into chapter 5 with further talk of high priests.

Mark 10:17-31

Following on from the children coming to Jesus and Jesus saying the kingdom needs to be received as a child would do, we have an 'adult' encounter between Jesus and 'a man' (17). Clearly a sincere and committed man, he 'runs up' to Jesus and 'kneels' before him, addressing him as 'Good Teacher' and asking the adult question, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?' (17) This is, in fact, a universal question of all religious people seeking to live according to God's will.

Jesus' response is not what ours may have been.We might well start in with the list of commandments (19). Jesus begins by turning the address of the man towards consideration of God: 

'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone' (18). 

On the one hand Jesus is directing the man towards God who alone can answer such a question, thus bringing into play the commandments which God has given. On the other hand, there is some irony in the response. Later, the church, understanding Jesus to be identified with God, will puzzle over this response: it sounds as though Jesus is denying that he, as the Son of God, is indeed 'good.'

Intriguingly, Jesus lists the 'social' commandments, the ones which impact on our relationships with others in society, rather than the first commandments which focus on our commitment to God. Also, the list is a slight variation on our usual 'Ten Commandments'. Instead of the 10th commandment not to covet, there is a commandment not to defraud. Was Jesus testing the man, who later in the story turns out to be wealthy. Wealthy people have no reason to covet but they may have achieved their wealth by fraud. So, Exodus 20:17 is replaced by Leviticus 19:13. Is Jesus implying that the man has wealth because he has defrauded fellow Israelites (Ched Myers, Say To This Mountain, Maryknoll: Orbis, 1996, 125)? If so, then is Jesus shortly asking of him an act of reparation? (21)

The man is calm in his response. He has kept these commandments since his youth (20). Something about the man - presumably his sincerity and perhaps his humility - draws affection from Jesus: 'Jesus, looking at him, loved him' (21). But what he then says shocked the man. Jesus' spiritual diagnosis means he does not say 'Come on in' or 'You've passed.' Jesus (we imagine) looks the man in the eye and says 'You lack one thing.' At this point the man does not lack earnestness or sincerity. Nor does he lack insight because he has, after all, come to Jesus. What he appears to lack is divesting himself of the one thing that is preventing him from following Jesus. 

'Go, sell, what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me' (21).

This is too much. He cannot do it. He is shocked. He walks away. Grieving, 'for he had many possessions' (22). There will be a challenge for many hearers today: many of us are fabulously wealthy by global standards. Wealthy to the point where we have possessions we do not think impinge on our ability to obey God's commandments. We may not even think of these possessions as hindering our following Jesus. But, if it came to the crunch - here is a testing question for all - could we sell our possessions and give the money away to the poor? If we cannot answer that question, is there something we need to work on?

Incidentally is it an adult trait to cling to possessions and be unable to give them up? Is the child-like embrace of the kingdom of God (10:13-16) in part an easy attitude to owning things and to giving them away? 

If the question is difficult to answer, we are in good company because the disciples themselves were 'perplexed' by what Jesus had to say (23-24). Jesus repeats himself, 

'Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God' (23, 24). 

To rub the point in he uses an extravagant metaphor. It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (25). Their perplexity continues: 'Then who can be saved' (26). Presumably they too have a few possessions, perhaps back in Capernaum where their boats were being leased by others and their families remained in their houses.

What then does Jesus mean in verse 27, that this is a situation which is impossible for mortals but not for God? At the least, and in keeping with other things said about salvation: it is God's work which saves us and not our work. It is impossible for ourselves but possible for God. But the question arises why God didn't make 'salvation' possible for the man who walked away. Again, we could surmise that many are called but few are chosen, and the wealthy man is not one of the chosen. But we could also surmise that, while salvation is God's gift to offer and to make possible for us, we have power to resist the work. The man came awfully close to salvation. Jesus 'loved him' and reached out to him. But a greater love compelled the man, love of his possessions.

Verses 28-31 then become a reassurance, both for Peter and the disciples, and for later readers. Effectively Peter's question in 28 is, 'Is it worthwhile giving up everything to follow you, Lord?' Jesus says it is worthwhile when it is done 'for my sake and for the sake of the good news' (29). But the rewards are not - despite initial appearances - about repayment in this life. Mention of 'persecutions' and of 'in the age to come eternal life' mean that the repayments are kingdom repayments. For example those who have left family will have a new and much larger family. Those who have left houses behind will always have a welcome in the houses of kingdom members.

Verse 31, familiar from other parts of the gospels, reminds us all that the kingdom's values are 'upside-down' relative to the world's values.

Finally, we might note something about last week's reading and this week's reading: on two topics which continue to trouble humanity and which definitely feature strongly in what we call "Western culture" - sexuality and material success (think about how many Hollywood movies and Netflix serials focus on either or both of these two themes), Jesus has some "hard teaching" which unflinchingly talks about "the cost of discipleship" in respect of commitment to our marriages and lack of commitment to our possessions and invesments.

Sunday 6 October 2024 - Ordinary 27

Theme(s): Divorce and remarriage / Marriage from creation / When two become one / Suffer the little children / Compassionate kingdom / Jesus: the exact imprint of God / We see Jesus

Sentence: We see Jesus ... now crowned with glory and honour because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9).

Collect:

Loving God,

yours is the vineyard and the harvest.

Help us to recognise the one you send and to follow him.

Make us willing workers in your vineyard,

so that we may offer you an abundant harvest.

We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit one God now and for ever. Amen

Readings (related):

Genesis 2:18-24
Psalm 8
Hebrews 1:1-14, 2:5-12
Mark 10:2-16

Comments:

Genesis 2:18-24

Due to some deft literary stitching, Genesis 1 and 2 are often read as a single account of creation. In fact there are two accounts, 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25. 

In the first account there are seven days of creation and the creation of humanity, male and female is the culmination of the creation of the earth, sky, stars, moon, plants and animals. 

In the second account there is one (long) day of creation with humanity represented by the Human (Adam; Heb. adam) being 'formed' from the ground (Heb. adamah) early in the account (7) and humanity divided into two genders being the end of the account (21-25). Through the account humanity thus takes centre stage rather than being the culmination of it.

Noting that the ending of the creation of creatures in the first account is 'male and female he created them' (1:27b) with the command, 'Be fruitful ...' (1:28) we see a parallel account of the creation of male and female at the conclusion of chapter 2: when the single 'Human' becomes man (Heb. ish in relation to woman, Heb. ishah) and the woman is created from the Human (2:22). These two bone of bones and flesh of flesh then become husband and wife and reunite as one flesh again (2:24), with the implication that from their uniting in sexual intercourse they will be fruitful according to 1:28.

In the gospel reading we find that Jesus himself stitches aspects of the two accounts together so that what he says about marriage is drawn from Genesis 1:27; 2:20-24 as well as Genesis 5:2.

Psalm 8

As a 'related' psalm, this psalm is undoubtedly related to the epistle reading rather than the gospel reading. (It is a little difficult to think of any psalm which discusses divorce!)

This is a beautiful song of praise to God praising the majesty of God's Name (1, 9). The glory of God is seen 'set ... above the heavens' (1b). So great is God that the psalmist wonders why God is 'mindful' of human beings (4). Yet, with respect to the nature whose beauty inspires this psalm, the psalmist recognizes that human beings are nevertheless esteemed (5) and given roles of responsible stewardship (6-8).

Hebrews 1:1-14, 2:5-12

Having completed James we begin Hebrews. This enigmatic letter has some Pauline characteristics which has led to some in the past ascribing its authorship to Paul but scholars are now agreed it is not by Paul and they are unsure who the unnamed author is. It is also enigmatic in terms of style: it looks a bit like a letter but reads like a (long) sermon. It certainly is an exposition of many Old Testament texts as it advances its case. To understand that case, let's look at our two passages for this Sunday.

1:1-14

'Our ancestors' in the first verse is a clue that this letter is not only addressed to Jewish Christians but also that there is an issue which is best approached by going back into the past. So verses 1-2 set up a contrast: the prophets spoke in the past but in these 'last days' (i.e. in the present era) God has spoken 'by a Son.' If we guess from this comparison that the central work of the letter will be to argue for the superiority of Jesus Christ then we guess right.

Verses 2-3 set out the rank, status and function of the Son, in one of the greatest christological statements of the New Testament with 'exact imprint of God's very being' arguably the most important of the statements made. Verse 4 then notes, almost in passing, that the purification of sins (on earth) and the seating 'at the right hand of the Majesty on high' (in heaven) makes Jesus 'superior to the angels'. In fact this particular superiority becomes the first great theme in the superiority of Jesus (1:5-14).

The argument that unfolds in verses 5-14 weaves texts from the Psalms and Isaiah together to ask questions and make statements all of which nail down, underline and highlight the point introduced in verse 4. There is a little carryover of the argument in 2:5-9.

Why this intense 'competition' between Jesus and the angels? We do not know for certain because we are not told. But it is not difficult to hypothesise that the addressees of the letter were worshipping angels and either counting Jesus among those angels (i.e. as just another angel) or even as less than those angels. Angel worship was not unknown to the first century Christians. Colossians 2:18 warns against 'worship of angels.' Twice in Revelation John is tempted to worship an angel and twice he is told not to, but to worship God instead (19:20; 22:8-9). On this hypothesis, the writer of Hebrews strikes his first blow in his message to a congregation misunderstanding some basic Christian teachings: Jesus is superior to angels. 

A similar hypothesis is that the congregation being addressed have some kind of confused understanding about angels. While they might not have worshipped them, were they overly interested in them, speculating on who they were, what they did and how they could be contacted? If this interest in angels was detracting from clear recognition of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, what we read here makes sense: the writer acknowledges the importance of angels but vigorously and repetitively sets out their relative importance to Jesus. He is completely superior to them. Only Jesus is the exact imprint of God.

(2:1-4: not specified for reading today, nevertheless a brief note may assist the preacher: these verses seem at first to be an aside (they take us from heaven back to earth), but may also be counted as a transition within the overall argument of the letter. The emphasis on angels here falls on their role in the delivery of the Law of Moses, 'For if the message declared through angels was valid ...' (2). We rightly ask where angels figured in the story of the delivery of the Law to Moses in Exodus. They do not, save for a slight reference in Deuteronomy 33:2 to the angels accompanying God at the time,  but there was a popular view in ancient Judaism that the angels played a role when the Law was given to Moses. This view also influences Stephen (Acts 7:38, 53) and Paul (Galatians 3:19). In these verses the writer argues that if the angelic message of the Law charted a future in which disobedience received 'a just penalty' (2) then to 'neglect' the 'salvation' offered by Jesus Christ (who is so much superior to the angels) is to incur (so to speak) double wrath from God: 'how can we escape if we neglect so great a salvation?' (3) The rest of verse 3 and verse 4 then emphasise the validity through attestation of the gospel 'declared' by the Lord. The theme of 'how can we escape etc' permeates the remainder of the letter).

2:5-12

Before we go any further I need to point out that the inclusivity of language in the NRSV (which generally works fine) does not serve it well in this passage. The passage cites Psalm 8 which includes mention of 'the son of man' and that must be engaged with in respect of what resonance it might have with Jesus as The Son of Man, indeed Jesus as a single/lone human being. Working inclusively the NRSV confines the literal, masculine translation to the footnotes and works with 'human beings', 'mortals' and 'them' in verses 5-7. Thus we might be helped to have the less inclusive but more accurate rendition given here for the first part of the passage (RSV adapted re thou/you, etc):

"5 For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking.
6 It has been testified somewhere,
'What is man that you are mindful of him,
or the son of man, that you care for him?
7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels,
you have crowned him with glory and honour,
putting everything in subjection under his feet.'
8 Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control.
As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.
9 But we see Jesus ..."

With verse 5 we are back from the interlude (but important transition) of 2:1-4 to the theme of Jesus' superiority to the angels (5). The 'coming world' is not subject to the angels but will be subject (or is becoming subject to Jesus). For evidence, the writer goes back to the Psalms, this time to Psalm 8 with its enigmatic talk of humanity made a little lower than the angels but after a while they will have everything subject to them. The NRSV is not wrong to inclusively count humanity as made lower than the angels and later to be lord over all things, but the singularity of the RSV (adapted) highlights some elements of wordplay going on. The human being extraordinaire is the now crowned one who fulfils the prophecy inherent in Psalm 8 (Hebrews 2:9).

But humanity is not out of the picture. Jesus is the 'pioneer of their salvation' (2:10). He goes ahead of us - another great theme in Hebrews - to secure and hold for us what God graciously makes available to us.

The writer makes one other point we should note. The fuller phrase in verse 10 is 'God ... should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings.' Perfection here is not ethical perfection: Jesus was understood to be without sin. Perfection here is about the completion of God's purposes. For the purpose of salvation Jesus needed to suffer. By suffering (in particular suffering as the ethically perfect one to become the perfect sacrifice for the sins of imperfect humanity) Jesus completed God's purposes for the world.

Going back to verses 8-9 we find the writer focusing his readers on Jesus ('we do see Jesus'). His 'suffering of death' is for our sake because he has tasted 'death for everyone.' We need to look over to verses 14-15 to see what that might mean: he has destroyed 'the power of death' so that we might be free from the fear of death.

There will be more to say on these matters as we work through the remainder of the letter.

Mark 10:2-16

Introduction

The topic of divorce remains one on which Christians ask questions. (In 2015 I wrote) currently the Roman Catholic church is coming to terms with a fairly dramatic change concerning annulment of marriages, pronounced by Pope Francis recently (see, e.g. here). Some readers here may have intensely personal questions about their own life situation, perhaps feeling trapped in an unsatisfactory marriage or fearful of marrying in case marriage does not turn out well or concerned to understand the theology of divorce and remarriage, perhaps with very relevant application to their own life situation. In what follows I have drawn some wisdom from Tom Wright, Mark for Everyone, London: SPCK, 2001, pp. 129-133 and from Robert H. Stein, Mark (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 2008, pp. 453-460. The thoughts expressed here are, of course, my responsibility rather than theirs.

I recommend this post by Ian Paul which gives a longer and more detailed background to and foreground discussion of the passage than I give below.

Finally, in my experience as a preacher, the subject of divorce is sensitive. In any congregation of, say, more than 20 people, there is a near 100% probability that at least one person present will have experienced the breakdown of a marriage with divorce as a final step in the ending their marriage. It is a pastorally challenging task for the preacher to speak up for marriage (marriage is good, society is built on marriage and family life), to encourage married people to continue in their marriages and to acknowledge that marriages can fail, that the ending of marriages occurs for reasons which go beyond adultery, and that the hurt and pain of divorce is deep and wide within a divorcing couple, their children, close relative and friends. 

There are no simple recipes for a successful marriage and many couples whose marriages last would (if feeling they could be honest and frank in saying so without their family and friends thinking ill of them) acknowledge that there were occasions when their marriage relationship was strained to the point where they contemplated separation and even divorce. Indeed our gospel passage this Sunday strongly implies that the first Christians were no different to 21st century Christians: they found marriage to be a great challenge!

Exegesis

From a narrative point of view, Jesus is drawing closer to Jerusalem and his death. This passage begins with the Pharisees seeking him out 'to test him' (2). These kinds of tests will become more intense as the days go by and the distance to Jerusalem grows shorter.

The fact that a question is asked about the legality of divorce suggests that the matter was controversial then. It would be no test to ask Jesus about a theoretical matter on which little rested of theological or pastoral importance. Further, Mark almost certainly reports this exchange because there is a question of marriage/divorce/remarriage being discussed within the community of readers he has in mind as he writes. (Although marriage and divorce is not a feature of the New Testament epistle generally, there are specific questions in the church in Corinth which Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 7 so it is likely that other communities of faith in the first century also had concerns). Presumably people were asking under what conditions they might secure a divorce (or, to be more accurate, under what conditions a man might secure a divorce from his wife (2)). As best we can tell the rabbis fell into two camps in their answers to such a question, roughly the 'hard' camp (the Shammaites) and the 'soft' camp (the Hillelites). To which did Jesus belong?

Spoiler alert: what follows is not egalitarian!

The 'hard' camp, the school of Shammai, interpreted Deuteronomy 24:1 ('... but she does not please [her husband] because he finds something objectionable about her ...') as restricting divorce to sexual unchastity by the wife. The 'soft' camp, the school of Hillel, interpreted it more liberally and 'permitted divorce for such things as a wife spoiling her husband's supper or his finding someone more attractive than her' (Stein, 455). Hence the framing of the question in the parallel passage in Matthew 19:3 as "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?". There it is more explicit than in Mark that Jesus is being pressed by his interlocuters to declare whether he was a Shammaite or a Hillelite. Effectively, Jesus declares himself a Shammaite. (See further, the Ian Paul blogpost linked to above).

But there is an even sharper possibility to consider about what lies behind the question. John the Baptist has already been executed for criticizing the marriage of Herod Antipas and Herodias (6:17-20), and Herodias had divorced her husband to marry Herod (note 10:11-12). The test question may have been a specific trap to draw Jesus also into angering Herod and thus into the possibility of his been removed from further public ministry by imprisonment if not execution.

Typically of Jesus, he asks a question of his questioners rather than answering their question. He is not just being 'clever/smart'. He wants the Pharisees to go back to first principles. He also, if the Herodian background to the question is correct, wants to avoid their entrapment. Only later will he reveal to the disciples what he actually thinks about the Herods' dodgy marriage (11-12).

So instead of answering the question whether it is legal for a man to divorce his wife he asks 'What did Moses command you?' (3). Their answer, v. 4, shows that they already know the answer to their question: it is legal!

Jesus goes on to offer a 'hard' interpretation of the legality of divorce (as then understood). Moses had authorised a legal way forward (or 'out') but it was not because of the softness of God's heart but 'because of your hardness of heart' (5). That is, the very pressure of desire for divorce led to Mosaic legalising of divorce. The general principle of marriage, as Jesus goes on to remind his hearers, is that 'what God has joined together, let no one separate' (9) and the theological reason for this general principle is that marriage is intended from creation itself, indeed from the fact that God created humanity 'male and female', to be a unitive relationship, two bodies becoming 'one flesh.' (6-8). The Pharisees want to talk about the grounds for divorce, Jesus turns that to talk of the foundational truths of marriage.

Nevertheless, marriage is challenging and few marriages remain blissful every day after the wedding day! The disciples understand these things about the difficulties of married life because they themselves seem unconvinced by Jesus' response to the Pharisees. Surely divorce is not forbidden no matter what difficulties a marriage falls into? So we read, 'Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.' (10).

In Matthew's version of this story they say a little more, 'If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.' (19:10) In other words, 'Your teaching on this, Lord, is too tough!'

Jesus responds with words which are brief, blunt and difficult ever since for the church to administer (Mark 10:11). While they may have been - as suggested above - a particular riposte aimed at the Herods, Mark reports these words here without reference to the Herods which implies that Mark felt that what Jesus said about marriage applied generally to all disciples and not just to local celebrities with well known marriage merry go-rounds.

That means that we should hear what Jesus says in these verses as applying to disciples. 

First, that he envisages that disciples will not have the same hard-heartedness as the Israelites in general had. The work of God in the lives of disciples should enable them to meet the challenges of marriage. 

Secondly, given the generally high expectations on disciples to live holy lives, worthy of the God who calls them into the kingdom, there should be no surprise that disciples are called to live their marriages to a high standard, the standard set by God in the original institution of marriage in creation.

Incidentally, for some readers Mark 10:9 may appear to contradict Mark 10:11. The former forbidding divorce and the latter acknowledging divorce but forbidding remarriage. In fact on the understanding of the rabbis, divorce implied freedom to remarry, so forbidding divorce and forbidding remarriage amounted to the same thing.

But the question will be in some readers minds, because of their own difficult marriage situation or that of a loved friend or family member, what do these verses mean for my (or their) situation? 

First, these verses do not tackle specific questions of when divorce might be acceptable (at least in the sense of the lesser of two evils, for instance when a spouse is being physically abused). That some exceptions became of concern to the early church is witnessed to in Matthew 5:32, 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 which provide 'exception clauses' relative to our passage in Mark.

Secondly, we therefore should not read these verses in such a manner that we feel bound to remain in an impossible situation. If we feel we are in that situation we should seek help from a pastor or marriage counselor. It may be helpful to remember that Jesus was being asked which of two schools of rabbinic thought he lined up with; he was not being asked about particular circumstances such as whether an abused wife should or even must remain married to an abusive husband.

What we - the whole Christian community of disciples - should be clear about from these verses is that Jesus endorses an understanding of marriage as ideally permanent (i.e. until one spouse dies), faithful, and stable. We would not expect Jesus to have a view of marriage which owed more to 21st century celebrity stories than to the Law of Moses and the theological principles of Genesis 1 and 2, so we should not be surprised that Jesus focuses on marriage being marriage and divorce being avoided. 

Again, working on the theological principles regarding marriage, working from the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2, it is not surprising that Jesus is teaching that God's expectation is that the married remain married, that no spouse hardens their heart against their partner simply because they find them generally unsatisfactory, that temptations to adultery will be resisted and that the intention in our hearts towards our spouses will be guided and directed by God's Word and not by the values of the world. These values, it seems in the Western world, in the 20th and 21st centuries, are determined according to what will make me happy rather than according to what sacrificial love towards our spouse means.

Nevertheless married life is a mix of joy and sorrow, of happy times and tough times, and anxious questions arise when a marriage becomes sorrow and no joy, tough and not happy, and very acutely so when the sorrow and toughness involve abuse. So, pastorally, it is important that I repeat something said above:

"Secondly, we therefore should not read these verses in such a manner that we feel bound to remain in an impossible situation. If we feel we are in that situation we should seek help from a pastor or marriage counselor. It may be helpful to remember that Jesus was being asked which of two schools of rabbinic thought he lined up with; he was not being asked about particular circumstances such as whether an abused wife should or even must remain married to an abusive husband."

Our final verses, 13-16, funnily enough involve children. Was that coincidence or did Mark deliberately place this incident as a natural follow on from discussing marriage?

On the one hand we can read this story as a mixture of cuteness and compassion: the mean ol' disciples try to shoo the children away and Jesus gets cross about that and says, "Let the little children come to me ..." They come and snuggle into Jesus' arms and he blesses them (16).

On the other hand this is a story, like most stories in Mark's Gospel, about the kingdom. First, 'to such as these ... the kingdom of God belongs.' Secondly, 'whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.' (14, 15). There is something about children which we are being invited to consider. It may not be just one thing. So we think of the innocence of children and their trusting natures, of the vulnerability of children and their powerlessness in society ruled by adults, and (casting an eye ahead to the next story, 10:17ff) their willingness to come to Jesus without negotiating conditions beforehand.

That is, if we are to enter the kingdom of heaven we may need to let go of the cynicism and wariness of adulthood and entrust ourselves to God. We may need to let go of thinking of how strong and sturdy we are and recognize the vulnerabilities within and allow God to speak to those with an invitation to come humbly under the rule of God. 

Sunday 29 September 2024 - Ordinary 26

Theme(s): Who is for the Lord? / Don't be a stumbling block / Get rid of stumbling blocks to Christian maturity / Discipleship / The urgent importance of obedience / Healing / Practical steps in pastoral care / Delegation

Sentence: 'The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective' (James 5:16b)

Collect:

God of all authority,

enable us to hear your call and do what you ask of us.

Forgive us for judging others,

help us to embrace the outcast and the downtrodden.

Transform our lives so that everything we do may proclaim your generous love.

We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord,

who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit one God now and for ever. Amen

Readings (related):

Numbers 11:4-6, 10-16, 24-29
Psalm 19:7-14
James 5:13-20
Mark 9:38-50

Comments:

Numbers 11:4-6, 10-16, 24-29

At first sight it is not clear why and how this reading as a related reading connects to the gospel reading but perseverance has a reward because we find in the last verses of the reading (26-29) something akin to Mark 9:38-40. 

Eldad and Medad prophesy when, theoretically, they are not supposed to. A cry goes up to Moses to stop them and Moses refuses to do so. 'Would that all the Lord's people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit on them!' is a memorable sentence which can be aptly used in the life of the church when we wish more of the congregation would do good things.

A fascinating aspect of the Numbers story represented in these passages is that it begins with a grizzle about food - essentially that eating manna everyday was boring (4-6, also 10-15) - and moves on to the load Moses is bearing as Chief Complaints Officer for Israel (10-15). The solution which the Lord gives is that he should delegate responsibility by appointing seventy elders (16). Yet what we then find is that the spirit of Moses which the Lord takes 'some' of (25) leads the seventy to 'prophesy'. It is only one occasion (25) but it sets up an expectation that they are prophesying elders and only these elders will prophesy.

Thus when Eldad and Medad begin prophesying 'out of turn' yet another complaint goes to Moses (27).

Psalm 19:7-14

These verses are part of one of the loveliest of psalms, a paeon of praise to God for that which communicates the glory of God: the heavens (1-6) and, in this passage, the law of the Lord (7-14).

Why this psalm in connection with the gospel? I have had to think about it, since it is not immediately obvious to my eyes. I think it is this: Jesus in the gospel gives some searching directions in regard to things which cause disciples to stumble. When it may even be, metaphorically, our hand or foot or eye, then it may be something we are so used to that it is a 'hidden fault' (Psalm 19:12).

The psalm is read today in order to include a prayer, verse 12, 'Clear me from hidden faults.'

James 5:13-20

These verses, we could even say, with verse 13, these 'cheerful' verses are full of practical instructions for church life. All are brief. A kind of "Quick Guide to Pastoral Ministry."

13: are you suffering ... cheerful, then you should pray ... sing songs of praise.
14: are you sick? call the elders. What should they do? Pray over you, anointing you with oil in the name of the Lord.
15: see below
16: 'Therefore' (what is this 'Therefore' there for?) confess your sins to one another ... so that you may be healed.
16b: a note about the prayer of the righteous
17-18: an illustrative story about the prayer of the righteous
19-20: the importance of bringing a wandering brother or sister back to the truth and away from sin and its deathly consequences.

Verse 15 is challenging because of its certainty: 'the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up.' Is this a certainty that the sick will be healed as in restored in this life to physical health (so that 'raise them up' means 'raise them up off their sick beds')?

Or is this a certainty that the sick will be 'saved' through the Lord 'raising them up' with the precise nature of the saving and the raising being left in the Lord's hands, who has discretion to save the sick even through death and to raise them to new life in God's presence?

Our experience as pray-ers of 'prayers of faith' tells us that it is the latter and not the former which is in view here.

Mark 9:38-50

This is a difficult passage if we are looking for a single theme or thread running through it.

Verses 38-41 begin with a report from the disciples about an exorcism by a non-disciple which Jesus counteracts by affirming the relevance and importance of people being committed doing things in his 'name.' That leads to a general conclusion, 'Whoever is not against us is for us.' But we lack clarity as to what precisely Jesus means. Was he making a simple observation about life, that when people are not against you they are effectively for you; that in some circumstances lack of prohibition is permission? Was  he making a claim about the inclusiveness of salvation so that (to put it a little bit provocatively) atheists-who-are-not-against-Jesus are counted as followers of Jesus but atheists-who-are-against-Jesus are not so counted? 

Verse 41 then offers a commentary on 'the name' of Christ and its importance: those who are not Christians but recognise Christians and honour them for their service in Christ's name will receive some kind of divine recognition for that, 'will by no means lose their reward.'

Verses 42-48 connect with verse 41 by thinking in a different direction: there will be those who do not give a cup of water to Christians, 'these little ones who believe in me,' but instead put some kind of stumbling block in front of them. For these ones a punishment awaits (42b).

Verses 43-48 then work from the word 'stumbling' and are - on the basis of the parallel in Matthew 5:29 - addressed to the disciples themselves. If something about their lives, represented by hand (43), foot (45), or eye (47) causes them to stumble, they should cut it off or tear it out. We should not get stuck on what the hand or foot or eye means but rather think about things in our lives - such as attachments, continuing habits of sin, embedded bad attitudes - which form stumbling blocks to our obedience to the demands of the kingdom of God. Decisive action may be required because Jesus associates the direction to cut or tear bodily parts with avoiding being 'thrown into hell.'

Most readers will find that verses 44 and 46 are missing from this passage. Where have they gone?! You may find, as I find in my NRSV, that these verses are (a) identical with verse 48, (b) 'lacking in the best ancient authorities.' That means that textual scholars deem that verses 44 and 46 are later additions to the earliest manuscripts of Mark. (In turn this means that they do not think the omission of 44 and 46 are late deletions of otherwise early verses). It is not difficult to imagine that a conscientious scribe, copying this passage, thought it should have the same words as we find in verse 48 after each mention of 'hell' at the end of verses 43 and 45.

Finally, verses 49-50 begin with a segue from 'the fire' of verse 48 to a different kind of 'fire', one in which 'everyone will be salted with fire.' Then there is a segue from 'salted' to 'salt' in verse 50. A look at the commentaries suggests many explanations of the enigmatic statement and thus an inherent difficulty if we wish to be sure what this means. One plausible explanation is given by Weston W. Fields (here). He argues that if we translate from the Greek into Hebrew then the word for 'salt' in Hebrew is also associated with destruction, e.g. Judges 9:45, and thus the sense of what Jesus is saying would be, '"everyone [who is sent to hell] will be completely destroyed (i.e. destroyed by fire)."

Whether we agree with that explanation or not, it does alert us to the importance of the statement as a record in Greek of something Jesus said in Hebrew (or Aramaic). Mark is unlikely to have invented such a difficult saying. Nor did it make much sense in ancient times - some early copyists of the Markan manuscripts attempted to improve on what they read.

The use of 'salt' in verse 49, however difficult to understand, then leads to a further reference to 'salt' in verse 50. This is more readily understood as a reference to the importance of discipleship being kept alive, with zing and zest.