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. 

Sunday 22 September 2024 - Ordinary 25

Theme(s): Jesus predicts his death and resurrection / How then shall we live? / Church conflicts: how they can be dealt with and why they never need arise / True wisdom / Asking and receiving / The character of the kingdom / The kingdom of God and its requirements of our character

Sentence: 'Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.' (Mark 9:37)

Collect:

God who sees everything,
may we understand true wisdom
so that our lives are both pure and peaceful
and your church is marked by harmony
through the power of the one Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

Readings (related):

Jeremiah 11:18-20
Psalm 54
James 3:13-4:3, 7-8a
Mark 9:30-37

Comments:

Jeremiah 11:18-20

In the gospel reading Jesus predicts his suffering and death (and resurrection). Here Jeremiah envisages his own fate at the hands of evil men. But he cannot see a resurrection ('his name will no longer be remembered') though he has faith that God will bring retribution upon those who destroy him.

Incidentally, as a detail which is not terrifically important, note that in the Greek version of Jeremiah 11:19, 'lamb' is arnion, the word which John the Seer, writing the Book of Revelation uses for 'the Lamb' who appears so often in his visions. By contrast John the Evangelist, writing the Gospel, uses the word amnos for Lamb in John 1:29, 36 when John the Baptist cries out for people to Behold the Lamb of God.

Psalm 54

This psalm, a cry from David's heart when pursued by Saul, fits well with Jesus' situation when he finds 'the ruthless seek my life' (3) but faces that situation sure that 'God is my helper' (4). As we find these kinds of psalms linked to the gospel readings such as today's, which speak of the suffering and death of Jesus, we build a repertoire of psalms which cast light on the meaning of the dark days of Jesus' suffering and thus of the explosion of glory which the resurrection represents.

James 3:13-4:3, 7-8a

Spoiler Alert: you might be troubled by this passage if your life is not in order, outwardly and inwardly!

If earlier we have seen James 'have a go' at those whose faith claims are at variance with their works (2:14-26), here we find him having a go at those who claim to be wise and understanding yet do not show this in the way they live. Moreover, the way these works are done, 'with gentleness born of wisdom' is important, for that will demonstrate the state of one's heart. There is a false wisdom which is 'earthly, unspiritual, devilish' which is represented when our hearts are full of 'bitter envy and selfish ambition' (13-15).

Such envy and selfish ambition leads to 'disorder and wickedness of every kind' (16) - which might explain some divisions and dysfunctions in the church! The contrast, with obvious shades of the Beatitudes (Matthew 5) and the Fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5) present, is 'the wisdom of above' which is 'first pure, then peaceable ...' (17). Different ones among us might usefully reflect on relevant items on the list. To take one, 'willing to yield', how many conflicts inside and outside the church make sad progress (i.e. regress) when parties to the conflict are unwilling to give way to the other. The theme of peace is especially strong through 17-18 (x3). James is right to emphasise this sign that the church understands the implications and application of the gospel of peace.

Chapter 4:1-3 is then a different tack on the same subject of conflicts and quarrels. It seems unlikely that any of James' readers would have been murderers, so does he have in mind the metaphorical murder, when we hate someone, when we cut them dead in conversation and when we exclude them from our social circle?

These verses begin with a kind of 'amateur psychology' approach exploring where 'conflicts and disputes' come from with the answer 'Do they not come from your cravings that are at war within you? (1) Actually, this is more than amateur psychology because - we know this from our own experience - conflicts and disputes often are about something else going on in our lives, a missing something which desire or crave. For example, we crave more attention and love so we conflict with the one in our group who is the centre of attention. (Looking ahead to the gospel reading and the dispute there among the disciples (Mark 9:33), there also was a craving for status!)

But the end of verse 2 takes us from psychology to theology, 'You do not have, because you do not ask.' James doesn't quite spell out what he is saying here. It sounds as though a fuller version would be, 'You end up quarrelling because of things you do not have and you are missing the point that you don't have these things because you haven't asked God for them.'

Incidentally, with those last words in verse 2 we are certainly taken to the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:7-11) and thus verse 3 becomes a commentary on Jesus' own words about asking and receiving. It is an age old tempting Christian question or two when we ask about what Jesus says about asking and receiving, 'Does that mean I can ask for anything at all and expect to get it?" And, as a follow up, we might also ask, 'Why didn't I get what I asked Jesus for?' Here James  answers that we do not receive what we ask for 'because you ask wrongly, in order to spend what you get on your pleasures'. In other words - noting verses 4-6 which are not part of the lectionary reading - when you ask according to your will and not according to God's will, you do not receive.

But we should go back to the end of verse 2. 'You do not have, because you do not ask.' Are there times - I know there are in my life - when you do not have what God wants you to have because you have done everything about your lack except ask God for supply!

Finally (7-8a), kind of summing up the whole situation of these verses, the lives we live, for good or for ill, according to our will or God's will, James draws a series of contrasts &: submit to God/resist the devil; draw near to God/he will draw near to you.

There is an old bumper sticker which proclaimed an important truth, "If you are not close to God, guess who moved?" (!!)

Mark 9:30-37

Famously, Mark has Jesus predicting three times that he will be put to death yet rise again to life. Our passage begins with the second of the predictions as Jesus again speaks to his disciples (30-32). Again we also find, in relation to this conversation, that Jesus is being secretive (cf. discussion in previous posts about 'the Messianic Secret' in Mark's Gospel). In this case Jesus 'did not want anyone to know' that they were passing through Galilee (30) because he wanted to speak to his disciples, 'for he was teaching ... "The Son of Man is to be betrayed ..."' (31). This suggests that Mark is very summarily giving us what Jesus taught, as a walk through Galilee would have take a day or three.

Despite this prolonged teaching session the disciples are, well, thick. 'But they did not understand what he was saying and were afraid to ask him.' (32) There is a bit to ponder here. Jesus was a good teacher, the disciples were following him and generally eager to learn from him. What was the blockage in this case?

Psychologically we can understand that the disciples were unable to comprehend that their beloved leader was going to die. They were, to use an old phrase, 'in denial.' Theologically we can understand that the disciples were unable to comprehend that their Messiah was going to suffer which, in turn, leads us to think that they knew all the stories of David's prowess as a warrior and nothing of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah.

But why were they 'afraid to ask him' to clear matters up?

The next verses may give us a clue (as well as telling us of the hopeless depth of incomprehension they were in). In the next scene the disciples are arguing amongst themselves. Jesus calls them out on it and their silence speaks volumes: they knew they had been caught arguing something that was displeasing to Jesus.

It all seems pathetic to us as readers! They were arguing over 'who was the greatest', that is, who was the greatest among them, who would be at the right hand of Jesus after his coronation. At once we see the depth of the disciples' commitment to some kind of political interpretation of Jesus' ministry. These healings and feedings were the prelude to taking up power and authority over Israel and booting the Romans out as well. Who wouldn't want to be top dog in the court of King Jesus! Perhaps their fear of asking Jesus to help them properly understand (32) was the fear of a grand fantasy being destroyed!

Jesus takes them to task on this. But, looking ahead, it is to little avail as there is yet another attempt to come to assert top dog status, we read in Mark 10:35-45.

But it is to our avail what Jesus says in verses 35-37. In the simplest and clearest terms he sets out the values of the kingdom, the real kingdom he is king of: the one wishing to be at his right hand should seek to be 'last of all and servant of all' (35). In that kingdom it is the last, the least and the lost - represented by the little child he takes in his arms - who is to be welcomed and given pride of place (36-37a).

When, we ourselves are members of this particular kingdom with these 'upside-down' values, and we welcome the last, the least and the lost, then we welcome Jesus himself. When we welcome Jesus we welcome God who sent him (37b).

In this last verse we find discipleship (what we are asked to do) meeting christology (who is Jesus?) because we find in the chain of welcome, child/Jesus/God there is a subtle equation between Jesus and God!

Postscript:

Incidentally, returning to 9:35, and recalling the prediction about suffering, death and resurrection at the beginning of the passage being one of three such predictions: 9:35 is one of three occasions in Mark’s Gospel when Jesus talks about the first becoming the last or something similar. Compare:

9:35    ”Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.”

10:31 “But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.”

10:44 “… and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all.”

Clearly a threefold repetition signifies the importance of the recurring matter. A significant kingdom value is that norms are upended. Hierarchy does not matter. The pathway to kingdom glory does not glitter; it involves cleaning toilets! 

Sunday 15 September 2024 - Ordinary 24

Theme(s): Suffering and Vindication / Cost of Discipleship / Taming the Tongue

Sentence: For what will it profit to gain the whole world and forfeit your life? (Mark 8:36)

Collect:

Holy and eternal God,'
Give us such trust in your sure purpose,
That we measure our lives
Not by what we have done or failed to do,
But by our faithfulness to you. Amen.

Readings (related):

Isaiah 50:4-9a
Psalm 116:1-9
James 3:1-12
Mark 8:27-38

Comments:

Isaiah 50:4-9a

Just as Jesus, in the gospel reading, looks ahead to his suffering at the hands of those who will kill him, so the prophet looks to a time of humiliation at the hands of his persecutors. But later, the first Christian writers, reporting to us the suffering of Jesus, will be influenced in their accounts by recollection of these words.

Isaiah 50:4-11 constitutes the so-called 'third servant song', songs with messianic themes which directly or indirectly shape both Jesus' own conception of his purpose and identity and the Christian understanding of Jesus as the Christ/Messiah, a suffering Messiah rather than a militant Messiah.

Psalm 116:1-9

We read this psalm in conjunction with Jesus' predictions - in our gospel reading - of his death (verses 1-7) and resurrection (verses 8-9).

What prayers of ours have been answered so that we want to exclaim 'I love the Lord ... because he inclined his ear to me'? (1-2)

James 3:1-12

We can all get this passage because we all know the damage the tongue causes. Perhaps our caustic tongue has caused damage (I know mine has). Perhaps we have been hurt by the acidic words of another's tongue. It needn't be our enemy, it might be our closest friend or colleague who hurts us with an ill-chosen word, or perhaps even with a well-chosen word but delivered thoughtlessly and without tact. It never does any Christian or any Christian congregation any harm to be reminded to control the tongue, to speak well of and to others and to never forget the power of the tongue, for evil and for good.

In a social media world, we could update "tongue" to include written words on social media which are received by us as a spoken word. Unfortunately, even in the church, words "spoken" via social media wound us, and such words can be abusive and constitute bullying behaviour.

What is of interest as we reflect on the passage are a few matters we might rush by.

3:1 challenges all of us who claim to be or who are contemplating being teachers. But we should not let the raw fact that we teachers will be judged 'with greater stricture.' That just makes our task more challenging.

3:2 To what does 'For all of us make many mistakes' refer? Is it a new topic? Does it connect back to teachers (i.e. saying to them, don't worry when you do make a mistake)?

3:2-5 involves a fascinating segue from mistakes to bridles to rudders to rudders being 'very small' to another very small thing, the tongue.

3:11-12 raises but does not quite see through an important point. Can anything be done about 'the spring' in our lives? The general answer of the New Testament is 'Yes' and the fuller answer is the indwelling of the Spirit of life makes for a well of life-giving water to flow out of us. But James leaves us to work all that out. Does he not know of the power of the Spirit or does he know of it but wants us to do the work of recalling that power and realising that we need a fresh in-filling of the Spirit?

Mark 8:27-38

We jump past the Feeding of the Four Thousand (8:1-10) which is sort of a repeat of the Feeding of the Five Thousand but crucially occurs in Gentile territory, so Mark telling this story is saying something about the inclusion of Gentiles in the kingdom of God.

We also jump past another dialogue with the Pharisees and an associated dialogue between Jesus and the disciples about the Pharisees and Herod, related to the two feedings (8:11-21).

Finally, we are also skipping past the healing of a blind man in 8:22-26. That healing is significant: it is paired with a second such healing in 10:46-52 and the two physical healings of blindness may be contrasted with the spiritual blindness of the disciples in the intervening passages, starting with today's passage, in which Peter is blind to the deepest truth about who Jesus is. At best, like a stage in the healing of the blind man in the preceding verses, Peter is partially sighted.

So, our passage for this Sunday:

Verses 27-33 are intensely Christological: "Who do people say that I am?" Jesus asks (27).

Verses 34-38 are among the deepest verses we can ever read on discipleship (not just self-denying discipleship but dying to self discipleship).

Yet together these verses tell us much about Jesus (who he is in relation to God but also who he is in relation to us, as the One who asks of us to give up our very lives) and much about discipleship (flawed, partially sighted followers asked to give everything, including life itself). The phrase 'on the way' (27) is a clue that this story is about discipleship as much as about Christology.

The initial answers the disciples give to the question Jesus poses are similar to what we have already read in 6:14-16. The disciples readily report what is the range of popular estimations of who Jesus is.
Pointedly Jesus asks 'But who do you say that I am?' Only Peter steps up to the theological plate and bats out the answer, 'You are the Messiah' (29).

Verse 30 is then both familiar and intriguing. Familiar because we have already seen the motif of the Messianic Secret in Mark's Gospel (e.g. last week at 7:36). Intriguing because you might think that 'on the way' to Jerusalem it might be now time to tell the world the truth about Jesus. Why not?

The answer to that question comes in the next few verses. 'Messiah' was a term redolent with nostalgia for the days of great King David and fervency for a new David-like king in warrior mode who would sweep Herod and the Romans before him. The disciples are not to tell people about Jesus being the Messiah because they will take that to mean one thing and one thing only. Jesus the Messiah is of a different calibre and in verses 31-33 he sets out to calibrate the disciples thinking to his way of self-understanding. He will be the suffering Messiah not the warring Messiah. His victory will be over the enemy of death and not over merely human opponents.

But Jesus does not make all this easy for us, nor (as we shall soon see) for his disciples. 'Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering ...' (31) Say who? Why does Jesus discontinue reference to 'Messiah' and replace it with 'Son of Man'? (Already introduced in Mark 2:10).

In part we do not know why, because we argue among ourselves as to what this enigmatic phrase (is it a title, as our capital letters in English signify?) means. But in another part we can reasonably propose that the phrase/title invokes a famous vision, Daniel 7: 13, especially when we notice the end of verse 38.

In this vision in Daniel, an enigmatic figure 'one like a son of man' is presented to the Most High in the context both of the suffering of Israel (under a succession of imperial overlords, see the first part of Daniel 7) and of hope of future victory. That enigmatic figure is enigmatic because we as readers are left wondering whether he is an angel or some other kind of high heavenly being or a representative figure corporately symbolising Israel. Or perhaps a bit of each?

So, we can propose, but others may debate the proposal, Jesus deftly begins his calibration of what 'Messiah' means by first equating the Messiah with the son of man figure in Daniel 7:13, and thus shifts focus away from a figure whose ability to raise a powerful army means a Davidic messiah is in views and towards a figure through whom God works to bring victory by another route.

By speaking specifically of the Son of Man 'suffering' it is likely that Jesus is also aligning 'Messiah' with the Suffering Servant figure who appears through various 'Servant Songs' in Isaiah, including the passage most readily interpreted in the light of the sufferings of Jesus through his trial, mocking and crucifixion, Isaiah 53. Also note the word 'must': what is going to happen to Jesus is going to be according to God's will.

Reading what Jesus says many years later and, of course, after we have received news of the resurrection, we may be somewhat sanguine about Jesus' prediction of his own future. But Peter did not have our advantage and he turns against Jesus (32). Jesus is not deterred. He 'rebukes' Peter in front of the other disciples and uses the strongest possible language to condemn someone who opposes God's plans: 'Satan' (33). This is a crisis or turning point in the narrative. Jesus is heading towards Jerusalem, according to God's plan and not according to human plans. The disciples are being brought in on the plan and they need to grasp it. This is no time for fudging the issues.

At the end of verse 33 we have a terrible scene. Jesus is near the culmination point of his ministry and his leading disciple has just opposed him and revealed at the same time that he 'knows nothing.' So Jesus rams home a key point about discipleship. Never let a crisis go to waste (so some say). The summary of what he says in 34-37 is this: I will suffer and you will suffer too; I will die and you need to be willing to die also.

The terms expressed in verse 35-36 are both stark and inspiring. What kind of life do we want? One that ends or one that continues? What kind of ultimate prize do we aspire to? Owning the world or possessing life eternal?

The final verse, 38, underlines the either/or options at stake, life or death. But the focus shifts slightly. It is one thing, say, to follow Jesus wholeheartedly and life-denyingly within the comfort of the Christian community. But what kind of disciples will we be in the public arena? When we follow a Messiah who suffers, and thus is a weak and pathetic figure in the eyes of the world, will we be a bold witness or an ashamed one? 

Sunday 8 September 2024 - Ordinary 23

Theme(s): Healing and deliverance / Who is Jesus? / Mission to the Gentiles / The kingdom of God / Equal love for all / No favourites!

Sentence: You do well if you really fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." (James 2:8)

Collect:

God, the strength of all who believe in you,
increase our faith and trust
in your Son Jesus Christ,
that in him we may live victoriously
through the power of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Readings (related):

Isaiah 35:4-7a
Psalm 146
James 2:1-10, (11-13), 14-17
Mark 7:24-37

Comments:

Isaiah 35:4-7a

This passage relates to the second healing in the gospel passage below, where further comments are made about Isaiah 35:1-10.

Psalm 146

We can connect this psalm with the concerns of the James reading (e.g. 3, 7-9). But we can also connect it with the healings in the Mark reading (e.g. 7b-9). Although neither kind of healing is explicitly referenced in these verses, both the demon-possessed daughter and the deaf-mute man were 'oppressed' by and 'prisoners' of their respective situations.

James 2:1-10, (11-13), 14-17

Don't read this passage out in any church which (a) rents its pews (b) ushers the better dressed parishioners to the front seats or (c) looks embarrassed when a homeless person turns up!!

James is very focused on good Christian behaviour, but is not restricted to matters deemed 'personal morality.' In several places, James is clearly concerned for the social morality of whole congregations. This passage is one of those places.

Congregations should not show favouritism to the rich nor prejudice against the poor (1-10). It is important to notice that James specifically frames this instruction in terms of 'our glorious Lord Jesus Christ' (1). He asks the question, 

'do you with your acts of favouritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?' 

The implication seems to be that if you do believe in Jesus you won't play favourites and that will be because you understand that Jesus treats each person the same since all are created equally in God's image and in the kingdom of God, all citizens are equal, because Jesus died for all in the same way and loved each in this action the same. Jesus did not die specially for the rich!

Further, verses 8-10: partiality runs against the 'royal law' of 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' Although he does not spell this out, if I love the rich more than the poor, then I am only loving one of those two groups 'as yourself' and that group is not the poor. Thus - noting verse 9 - partiality breaks this royal law and such partial Christians 'commit sin' and are 'transgressors.'

Verse 10 then spells out a point which is especially apt for the subject of verses 1-10, but has implications for other matters of obedience/disobedience (11-13). That point is that we are law-breakers because we break one law, not because we break a majority of them. We cannot keep all the other laws and get a 'Get our of jail' card on showing partiality. If we are partial then we have ruined our law keeping efforts.

With verses 14-17 we return to the question of partiality, but with a different focus. In verses 1-10 the focus was on whether the congregation treated the rich deferentially compared to the poor. In these verses the focus is on how the poor are treated full-stop. When confronted by the poor and their obvious needs for clothing and food, words are not enough. Action is required. We cannot be partial to words and favour them over deeds, for fine words never clothed or fed anyone.

But there is another issue being raised in these verses and that issue continues through the remainder of the chapter (which is not read next Sunday). That issue is the question of 'faith' and 'works'. Scholars seem largely agreed that in the background here is an early church debate in the light of what Paul the Apostle taught about faith and works. In this debate, as known to James, it seems that 'faith' (without works, at least in the sense of good deeds of kindness and mercy) has been exalted  and works deprecated. This is not surprising in a congregation prepared to favour the rich (who need no good deeds shown to them other than where the front seats in the church are).

It would take more space and time than I presently have to work out why a congregation might have drawn this conclusion from the writings of Paul, whether such a conclusion was justified, and, indeed, what Paul's understanding of 'faith' in relation to 'works' actually was. We could, in such a space and time allocation, also consider what various theologians have made of the situation, the most memorable of whom was Martin Luther who dismissed James on the basis that this passage seemed to contradict Luther's newly discovered doctrine of justification by faith in the Pauline epistles.

What we can say, briefly, is that James is absolutely correct to determine that faith is not faith if it is not evidenced by works. He is correct both on the basis that this is something Jesus himself taught in the gospels and on the basis that (whatever we make of 'faith' and 'works' in Paul's writings when he is explicitly discussing both themes) Paul himself always envisages, in the second part of his epistles, the new life of the justified believer in Christ expressing itself in deeds of love.

Mark 7:24-37

We are in a section of Mark's Gospel in which Jesus is ministering in Gentile/Greek dominated territory ('the region of Tyre', 24; 'the region of the Decapolis,' 31). Looking back to last week's reading, remembering that Mark translates some aspect of Jewish life for his (likely) Gentile readers, we therefore note that Mark is bringing stories of Jesus-meeting-Gentiles-and-changing-their-lives to his Gentile readers.

Today we have two healing miracles which we could summarise as 'Jesus heals Gentiles too!' But there is more to the stories than that, and some digging into the detail both yields exegetical rewards as well as raising challenging questions.

Verse 24 rehearses a familiar theme from the gospels, Jesus attempts to be anonymous, to escape the hustle and bustle of his ministry.. Those familiar with Middle Eastern life will not be surprised at the failure of these attempts: everything is noticed and reported around the community!

The woman introduced in verse 25 becomes, in verse 26, someone whom Mark goes out of his way to tell us about. He doubles up on her Gentility: 'a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin.' But that definitiveness about her status relative to the Jewish Jesus heightens the exegetical challenge in verse 27.

First, the ever loving and compassionate Jesus seems a somewhat off-handed Jesus, disinterested in helping her daughter.

Secondly,  what are we to make of Jesus describing the woman (and, by extension, all Gentiles) as 'dogs'? (Indeed, is there something chauvinist in this ascription being directed to a Gentile woman?)

Thirdly, the ever inclusive, globally focused missional Jesus seems focused on mission to Israel and no one else. What is going on?

One explanation is that Jesus is not disinterested in her plight and is not exclusive in his mission but is teasing her or challenging her to move beyond 'begging' (26) to demonstrating (mature?) faith in Jesus.

Further, in his teasing or challenging riposte in verse 27, Jesus is not, according to this explanation, deprecatingly describing her as a 'dog' but ironically picking up the everyday language of Jews in relation to Gentiles. That is, effectively Jesus is saying, "So, tell me, given the priority of my mission to Israel, to the Jews, why should I offer to one whom Jews put down with the term 'dog' a blessing reserved, at this time, for them and not ordinarily available to Gentiles?"

Another explanation is that Mark is presenting the church - perhaps unwittingly - with an unvarnished portrait of Jesus which does not fit with a number of christological conclusions we have reached many centuries later about Jesus (that he loves everyone, that his mission was to the world, to both Israel and to the Gentile nations, that he was gracious and well-mannered to all people). The real or historical Jesus was a man of his context: he was a Jew and shared the Jewish view of Gentiles as second-class citizens (and may have been chauvinist), he was - as a self-conscious prophetic and rabbinic figure within Israel, exclusively focused on the problems of Israel.

Further, and shockingly for our christological assumption that Jesus the Son of God knows everything, on this unvarnished view of Jesus, the Syrophoenician woman taught Jesus something: Gentiles had worth too. They may be viewed as 'dogs' in relation to Israel as the 'children' of God, but dogs get to eat the same food of God.

I am not going to attempt to resolve these opposing views save to note that Jesus himself, according to verse 24, seems determined to head into Gentile territory. So he knowingly placed himself where he would encounter Gentiles. That observation may lean our assessment towards the first rather than the second explanation.

[Note: a particularly excellent discussion on how we may or should interpret this passage is given by Ian Paul at Psephizo.]

What is Mark doing in this story? Surely, by presenting this story, and in particular the exchange in verses 27 and 28, Mark is warning Jewish readers against viewing Gentiles as second class citizens of the world or kingdom of God. The kingdom of God - whatever Jesus was doing and thinking when the conversation took place - is now the kingdom of Jew and Gentile. All eat the same food at the table of God.

The deaf man with a speech impediment perhaps poses less challenges but raises some questions nevertheless. There is a parallel with the first healing story in this passage. Thus we notice that 'They' brought the man and 'they begged him to lay his hand on them' (32). We recall the woman came on behalf of her daughter, and she too 'begged' Jesus to help her daughter. A potential angle for a sermon is the challenge of being disciples: that disciples bring the problems of others - a daughter, a friend - to Jesus for resolution. By contrast, the James reading challenges us about what we might do when we have the capacity to resolve a problem ourselves.

When we go on to read that Jesus 'took him aside in private, away from the crowd' (33), we wonder why he did that. We also wonder how Mark knows what Jesus said (34) because reporting the word 'Ephphatha' to us almost certainly means that someone heard Jesus speak in Aramaic and this word in particular was remembered, treasured and handed on from one story-teller to another.

That stories were told and re-told about this miraculous event logically flows from verse 36. The point in verse 36 is that Jesus wants to downplay his significance, almost certainly because he was concerned at that significance being misunderstood (i.e. that is misunderstood in terms of the politics of the day). But - typically for humanity - the more one tries to suppress speech, the more the gossip flows around a community.

The motif of (attempted) secrecy in Mark's Gospel is called by scholars, The Messianic Secret.

Finally, in verse 37, continuing another theme in Mark's Gospel, the crowd around Jesus are 'astounded beyond measure' and praise Jesus. In this case, their saying 'he even makes the deaf to hear and the mute to speak' is multi-layered in its significance.

Layer one: literally, the deaf and the mute hear and speak.

Layer two: prophecy is being fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus (see Isaiah 35:5) and thus visions such as Isaiah 35:1-10 which look ahead to a great and glorious day of restoration for Israel are coming into being in the reality of the kingdom of God which Jesus proclaims with words and inaugurates with deeds according to Mark's Gospel.*

Layer three: (this is a bit complicated, and reading Isaiah 6:9-10 with Isaiah 35:1-10 will assist). Already in Mark's Gospel we have encountered Jesus explaining parables and why he uses them in terms which invoke Isaiah 6:9-10 and the resistance of hearers of God's messengers to really hearing what God is saying through prophecies/parables. But the kingdom of God comes about because some people do receive the message and receiving it, they pass it on: their ears are not stopped and their tongues are not constrained. Thus this healing is a further sign of the coming of the kingdom.

(*For those interested in the proposals of Bishop Tom (N.T.) Wright, and, in this case, his proposal that the gospels are best understood in terms of Jesus bringing about the ending of Israel's exile, then the relationship between Isaiah 35:1-10 and this story is intriguing, because Isaiah 35:1-10 is about more than a general restoration for Israel, it is about the return from exile). 

Sunday 1 September 2024 - Ordinary 22

Theme(s): Clean heart versus clean hands / Inward and outward religion / What is true religion? / Avoiding hypocrisy / God's commandments and human traditions

Sentence: Be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves (James 1:22).

Collect:

Gentle Father,
show us our sins as they really are
so that we may truly renounce them
and know the depth and richness of your mercy. Amen.

Readings (related):

Deuteronomy 4:1-2, 6-9
Psalm 15
James 1:17-27
Mark 7:1-8, 14-15

Comments:

We return to Mark - the Gospel of Year C - and dig into a challenging chapter because it takes us into crucial debates between the Jesus movement and those Jews who resisted the advance of that movement, while also raising the question, why does Mark give such prominence to these debates when - in all likelihood - he was writing his gospel in Rome and with a Rome-based audience in view?

Deuteronomy 4:1-2, 6-9

Deuteronomy is a 'second giving of the law'. In this version of the divine Law mediated to us by Moses, the purity and perfection of the Law (as given) is emphasised, along with the importance of obedience to the Law. With respect to our gospel reading today we especially notice verse 2: nothing is to be added to or subtracted from the Law.

Psalm 15

I was once told, and have never forgotten, in my all boys' school, that Psalm 15 sets out the character and characteristics of the perfect gentleman!

Some years on in my life, and hopefully wiser (more inclusive) and more knowledgeable (see next), I wish to also say this: there are a number of points in the Old Testament where a form of summary of what God requires of his people is set out. Psalm 15 is one of those. Another example is Micah 6:6-8 (possibly the both the best known such example and the briefest). Put another way, if you find the 603 commandments of Moses or the 31 chapters of Proverbs difficult to memorise, then summary help is at hand in several places in the OT. Psalm 15 is one of them.

In the context of today's readings, we note that the person who may fellowship with God 

(1) is the person who is both walking blamelessly, i.e. obeying the Law, and

(2) living an outwardly blameless life with a heartfelt motivation to do the right thing (2b, 4b, 4c).

Such a person is stable and solid, a pillar in the household of God (5b).

James 1:17-27

We are moving on from Ephesians to James.

The Epistle of James (the brother of Jesus?) complements the Pauline epistles which emphasise the importance of faith: we should not neglect the importance of good works which express that faith. The general problem over the centuries has been the thought that in James' epistle the importance of good works is emphasised to the point of apparent neglect of the importance of faith in Christ (see James 2:14-26).

In today's passage - after the introduction in verses 1-16, focusing on testing of faith, wisdom, humility, resisting temptation - the writer continues a vein of exhortation which is coherent with the introduction. Our passage would not be out of place in the wisdom literature of the Bible, in the exhortation passages in the Pauline epistles, and it is reminiscent of Jesus' own teaching (as, indeed, most of the letter is - we could think of this epistle as a reworking of the Sermon on the Mount).

The centrepiece and effective summary of the passage is verse 22:

'But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves.'

With an eye on the gospel reading it is not hard to think that James is commenting on aspects of the passage: the true state of the heart comes from both being undeceived as to what is really going on within ourselves (26) and being filled with the word of truth (18, 21, 25).

Typically of James' epistle, there is a strong emphasis throughout the passage on 'practical religion'. And if for some of us the word 'religion' is something we are not so keen on using to describe 'the Christian faith', then we confront the fact that James' himself uses the word (26-27).

And the note he strikes is sobering and challenging: pure and undefiled religion is practical care ahead of pure practice of worship in the liturgy: 

'to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.' (27)

We may need to translate 'orphans and widows' in relation to the world today (migrants and beneficiaries?) but we cannot and must not avoid the challenge to reach out with practical care to those less well off than ourselves. From that perspective, today's passage is an exposition of the commandment, 

"Love your neighbours as yourselves."

Note, incidentally, that the emphasis on 'doing' in this passage is not an emphasis on our actions and practical works in order to elicit God's favour towards us. 

Verses 17 and 18, for instance, speak of God's initiative in giving to us that which makes us generous and that which makes us 'first fruits of his creatures' 'in fulfillment of his own purpose.' 

Verse 21 speaks of ridding ourselves of 'sordidness' and 'rank growth of wickedness' so that 'the implanted word' (i.e. given by God to us) may be welcomed, the word which 'has power to save your souls'. We do not save ourselves by our good works but our good works tell the world that God has begun and continues a saving work within us.

Mark 7:1-8, 14-15

We need to read the first verses carefully to discern what Mark's agenda is here.

Recalling our foray over recent Sundays into John 6, we see there the sequence of Feeding Five Thousand and Walking on Water followed by an extensive discourse about the meaning of bread. Here Mark frames a quite -different direction: Jerusalem-based Pharisees and scribes gather around Jesus and ask him about ritual cleansing (1-5).

But is the passage about (so to speak) a Christian response to Jewish rites of cleansing or something else?

Note in verses 3 and 4 that Mark takes great pains to explain the issue: there are washing rites which obedient Jews should be observing, but the disciples were not observing them (v. 2). But that only raises the question why Mark bothers to tell this particular story many years later.

One possibility is that Mark is indirectly tackling a current issue of different practice between Jewish and Gentile Christians in his local church community (likely Rome, see also Romans 14-15 for another mode of tackling such difference in the Roman church).

Another possibility is that he is simply building up to a particular point in the teaching of Jesus which has universal applicability: the source of evil in respect of people is from within themselves and not from outside of themselves (17-23).

Along the way (and returning to the passage set down for this Sunday), Jesus makes a different point, about the state of the human heart in relation to worship of God (6-8). That point is that it is possible to act outwardly correctly (e.g. washing hands) while inwardly being wayward and far from God. This is a form of acting out one reality while living another, that is, a way of life which draws the charge 'you hypocrites' (6).

In saying this, Jesus reaches back to Isaiah 29:13 (verses 6b-7), to the scriptures of Israel from one of the great prophets. Thus he aligns himself with the great prophetic critique of Israel's mischievous approach to obedience to the Law, one in which the minimum one needs to do is done.

(Your Bible may have a footnote which tells you that it is "Isaiah 29:13 LXX" which is cited, that is the Greek version of the Old Testament. While it is true that that raises questions about the extent to which Mark is interpreting what he has received about what Jesus said, because Jesus almost certainly did not ever refer to the Greek Old Testament in his own speech, it is also true that we do not know exactly which Hebrew version of the Old Testament Jesus used. What we call the Hebrew version of the Old Testament (i.e. Masoretic text) is one version of the Old Testament. There may have been other versions in Jesus' day, reflected in the Greek translation which Mark uses.)

Verse 8 is just a little bit puzzling (especially if we do not go on to read the next verses). On the face of it, there are plenty of regulations in the Mosaic Law about washing rituals which are divine 'commandment' and not human 'tradition'.

But verse 8 is a pivot from the general problem in verses 5-7, whether one pleases God by outward obedience or by inward attitude and desire for fellowship with God, to another problem. That problem is whether the commandments of God in Scripture are being diminished in importance by the development of later custom endorsed by the scribes and Pharisees, i.e. by 'human tradition.' Verses 9-13 then set out an egregious example of such tradition trumping God-given commandment.

If we go back to the starting issue, washing hands or not before a meal (5), verses 14-15 then become the definitive response of Jesus. (This response, we should note, was not one which biologically considered whether or not it was necessary hygiene to wash hands before a meal). In that response Jesus justifies his disciples' ritual slackness. People are not defiled by lack of ritual cleanliness but the state of their hearts. An unwashed hand may place both food and something else alien in the mouth. But this is not defiling. What is defiling is what comes out of the mouth by way of words which give expression to the state of the heart. His disciples might be technically ritually unclean but their hearts were good.

Lessons for ourselves in a different time, place and context are not hard to find.
(1) Do we honour God with our hearts? Or are we going through the outward motions of pleasing God? (6)
(2) Do we by teaching, whether with words or by example, encourage people to follow human custom/entrenched tradition which - on closer examination - is unsupported by the commandment of God? (8)
(3) Have we heard ourselves speak lately? Does our language express a defiled heart? (14-15)

This year, 2024, is the fifth year of the Covid-19 pandemic. Washing hands and other methods of keeping clean and preventing others from being infected by ourselves remain high on the priorities of governments and of individuals around the world! 

Sunday 25 August 2024 - Ordinary 21

Theme(s): Choose whom you will serve / Costly discipleship / Spiritual warfare / God's protection

Sentence: 'Choose this day whom you will serve' (Joshua 24:15)

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 (related):

Joshua 24:1-2a,14-18
Psalm 34:15-22
Ephesians 6:10-20
John 6:56-69

Comments:

Joshua 24:1-2a,14-18

This passage highlights and underlines one of the great questions for all who follow the God of Israel:

"choose this day whom you will serve" (15).

In Joshua the question is posed in terms of serving the Lord (YHWH) or the gods of surrounding nations. The same question is effectively asked of his disciples by Jesus (= Joshua!) in our gospel reading.

The story of Joshua both completes the Exodus of Israel from Egypt and begins the settlement of Israel in Canaan, its Promised Land. So this question coming at the end of Joshua tests the direction of Israel in its relationship with the LORD God. Will it faithfully and singlemindedly serve the one God who has brought them out of Egypt into the Promised Land? Will it continue in relationship with this God as it settles and remains, generation after generation?

Unfortunately the succeeding historical books in the Old Testament show that the clarity of conviction in the answer given in Joshua 24 was not always upheld by either the people of Israel or its rules.

Psalm 34:15-22

The portion of the psalm read last Sunday emphasised the Lord's provision for the needs of his people.

This week's portion emphasises the protection of the Lord for his people. The righteous have many afflictions, 'but the Lord rescues them from them all.' (19)

Ephesians 6:10-20

This passage is much preached from on the subject of 'spiritual warfare.'

Paul moves from an initial instruction concerning standing 'against the wiles of the devil' (11) (which could mean no more than resisting temptation) to a general statement about the larger battle in which the saints are involved:

'our struggle ... against rulers ... of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places' (12).

Initially we might interpret this as an almost bizarre change from the domestic concerns of the preceding verses (about husband/wife, father/child, master/slave relationships). But Ephesians began in chapter one with an amazing vision of God's eternal purposes being worked out in both physical and spiritual worlds, in both earth and heaven. So Paul is taking us back to where he began. But in this practical second half of the book, he sets out our role in the great battle between good and evil as it is fought in both the world we see and in the world we do not see.

We'll come back to verse 12 below, re the principalities and powers, but let's press on for now with where Paul heads. In verse 13, after his introduction, there is a sturdy and directional, 'Therefore.'

What is an Ephesian Christian to do about resisting the wiles of the devil? 'Therefore take up the whole armour of God' (13). But the whole phrase is puzzling. It is 'Therefore take up the whole armour of God on that evil day'. To what day is Paul referring? Is he looking ahead to the great and final Day of Judgement (when the ongoing battle between good and evil reaches some kind of climax)? Or is he using 'day' in a more general sense of 'the present age' (see 'this present darkness' in verse 12)? That it might be the latter is suggested by the next phrase, 'and having done everything to stand firm' because that suggests that we put on the armour now and keep it on, fighting the battle and whenever we think we have won, remaining resolute and firm and ready to fight the next battle.

Verses 14 to 17 are then an absolutely easy to grasp picture of the spiritually armoured Christian in the light of the standard armour worn by a typical Roman soldier. Our difficulty in the 21st century may be that we are not as familiar as we once were about that armour (e.g. in the days when learning Latin was spread throughout many schools), and not as familiar as Paul's readers would have been.  (I won't go here into the details of that physical armour - a decent commentary or Bible encyclopedia may assist you - even Wikipedia).

The general point, the point which unites the details of these verses, is that in this particular spiritual battle, it is the basics of being a gospel Christian that count: truth, righteousness, proclamation of the gospel of peace, faith, salvation, the Spirit and the word of God. Why? One reason is that a wile of the devil is to distort the truth of God. Another wile is to undermine the gospel (e.g. by getting Christians to believe less than or more than the gospel itself requires). A further wile is to lure Christians into standing on their own two feet, independent of God, rather than standing on the promises of God in the power of the Spirit, trusting God for protection (see above, Psalm 34).

Another reason for Paul setting out the response Christians are to make is that in a context of 'principalities and powers', questions of allegiance arise in the battle for hearts and minds of humanity. The basic signs of our allegiance to the God of Jesus Christ are our commitment to the truth of the gospel, to proclaiming that truth, to faith, righteousness, salvation, the Spirit and the word of God.

From this exposition on spiritual warfare Paul both moves on to the topic of prayer and also connects prayer with that exposition (since praying for Paul will help him in his particular current battle, 19-20). Prayer, Paul says, is to be both continual ('at all times') and persistent ('always persevere') (19).

Now back to a tricky topic in verse 12.

Paul distinguishes between two sets of opponents for Christians: 'enemies of flesh and blood' and 'the rulers ... the authorities ... the cosmic powers of this present darkness ... the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.'

The former are clearly fellow human beings and could include (in his day) opposing Jews and Gentiles in the cities and countryside in which Christians lived and worshipped, as well as the Roman authorities, both local and the Emperor himself in Rome.

The latter, the cosmic powers of this present darkness, are less easy for us on earth to envisage: they are not experienced as flesh and blood but they are real in the other world, the world beyond this world which they inhabit. To a degree we can envisage them by reading books such as Daniel and Revelation with their visions and their talk of angels, fallen angels, of demons, of beasts and so forth. But only to a degree because those visions tend to convey an impression of battles being fought in that other world between the forces of light and darkness but do not tend to convey an impression that we take part in such spiritual or heavenly battles. Here, by contrast, Paul says that the real battle we are fighting is not against the opponents we can see but against opponents we cannot see.

That raises the question of who these principalities and powers are. I am not going to take a stand on the matter here, and refer you to commentaries for more comment than I will give here.

On the one hand I observe that some interpreters concentrate our attention on understanding that there are spiritual forces of evil (e.g. demons) which being spiritual can inflict themselves on us earthly creatures and against them we stand by way of the direction given in verses 13 onwards.

On the other hand I observe that some interpreters - no doubt wary of invoking demons as explanations for evil deeds committed by human beings - commend to us an understanding of these principalities and powers in sociological (or perhaps political terms): every human organisation (be it a club, society, nation or culture) takes on an inner life, an ethos which affects (and even inflicts itself on) individuals. Against this 'thing' which is hard to explain, but which is definitely experienced by us (e.g. we walk into, say, one school or clubrooms and experience it in terms of warmth and welcome and walk into another and experience it in terms of aggression and alienation), Paul invites us to stand with basic gospel values and commitments.

Obviously much more is to be said here. My final thought for now is this: what if the principalities and powers are both spiritual and sociological? (!!)

John 6:56-69

Verses 56-58 sum up and conclude Jesus' teaching on eating and drinking: his flesh and his blood in order to abide in him (56-57) and the bread which came down from heaven in order to live forever (58). This is extraordinarily provocative teaching because  (a)  blood was forbidden to Jews (Deuteronomy 12:23) and (b) Jesus was claiming that the bread he offered was better quality than the manna God supplied in the desert. 

Note, however, that Jesus is not so much asking his followers to do something forbidden by drinking his blood but asking them to believe that in him true life - represented by blood - was to be found. (That, is Jesus agrees with the Mosaic Law, the life of the creature is in the blood; but says what is prohibited of animals is not forbidden of his blood.)

But verse 59 is a bit puzzling. John says that Jesus said these things 'while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.' On the one hand, this is a place where Jesus teaches according to the gospels (Mark 1:21; Luke 4:31). On the other hand, although earlier in John 6, Jesus has been heading towards Capernaum (17, 24), we the readers have not been told that Jesus has been giving this discourse in the Capernaum synagogue. By locating the teaching in the synagogue at the end of the discourse, John may be hinting that Jesus' teaching was extended over time, from, say, an initial delivery at the lake's edge to a final delivery in the synagogue. Specific mention of the synagogue as location for the teaching also underlines that Jesus is offering a reading of Israel's scriptures (which were routinely read in the synagogue).

John is also highlighting that Jesus was engaged at a teaching centre of Judaism (albeit in Capernaum and not in Jerusalem) when he delivered this 'alternative' teaching in Jewish terms about what gives life to God's people.

That the teaching was provocatively controversial to his Jewish audience is heightened in verse 60 where we read that even some of his disciples  found it 'difficult.' (The New English Bible has a wonderful, punnish version - sadly not continued in the Revised English Version: "This is more than we can stomach.")

Jesus then makes life very difficult for his disciples by being frank and robust about who he is (61-64). If they do not like his teaching on bread, flesh and blood, they will not like the thought of his 'ascending to where he was before' (62). Why does he say this? Presumably to make the point that those who believe in him must not only believe that he has come from God (Incarnation) but also that he returns to God (Resurrection and Ascension). Yet Jesus goes further and for a moment seems to undermine his teaching on bread, flesh and blood when he says,

'It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless.'

But he also says in the next breathe, 

'The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.' (63)

Cleverly Jesus is giving an interpretation of what he has been saying: the key to abiding in him, to receiving eternal life is not the eating of any literal flesh or drinking of any actual blood but the action of the Holy Spirit breathing in new life into the one who believes his words.

(It is not difficult to understand that Jesus never intended his believers to be cannibals, but a different question arises as to whether he expected them to eat bread (like the manna of old) symbolising his being the bread come down from heaven, a question which is hard to answer on purely Johannine terms because he does not report the institution of the Lord's Supper. We can imagine that John presumed his Christian readers would have been eucharistic Christians and thus would have understood John 6 with reference to eating bread and drinking wine, to eating the body and drinking the blood of Jesus).

(Another aside: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is useless" relates to the "epiclesis" in communion, the invocation of the Holy Spirit to come upon the bread and wine that it may be the body and blood of Christ.)

In other words, Jesus is both making it easier and harder for those disciples on the verge of walking out. Easier by making the teaching less objectionable with particular respect to eating flesh and drinking blood. Harder because Jesus is making his words supersede Moses' teaching (see John 1:17) and his talk of the spirit giving life a better nurture than the feeding with manna.

When combined with Jesus' understanding of descent/ascent from/to heaven (62) - an understanding which itself is a point of mystical/apocalyptic difference to the emerging rabbinic Judaism centred on the synagogues and the Temple - Jesus presents a complex and comprehensive teaching which is decisively different to Judaism. Thus this is a moment when those drawn to Jesus need to ask themselves whether they are going on, all the way with Jesus, or drawing back.

Verses 64-65 challenge us further - as if this is not already 'my brain hurts' material - because Jesus says that he already knows the pathways these temporary disciples and Judas will take. The challenge here is the sense that these verses convey that believers are pre-destined to be believers (65).

Thus schism takes place within the disciples (i.e. between the true and faint-hearted disciples), a schism which may reflect schism within the later Johannine church (on which situation, reading 1, 2 and 3 John will assist).

Simon Peter's response to the question, whether 'the twelve' (only mentioned here and in 20:34 in John's Gospel) will also go, has a distinctive Johannine form while also resembling his confession at Caesarea Phillipi (see Mark 8:28-29).

For us readers we also hear the question of Jesus. Will we go or stay with him? Our answer will depend on whether we agree with Simon Peter that Jesus has the words of eternal life.