The following material was written by the Rev. John Shearman (jlss@sympatico.ca) of the United Church of Canada. John normally structures his offerings so that the first portion can be used as a bulletin insert, while the second portion provides a more in depth 'introduction to the scripture'.
INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE
Ordinary 22 - Proper 17 - Year A
[NOTE: Throughout the Season after Pentecost the RCL
provides a set of alternate lessons which some
denominations prefer. A summary of these readings is
also included below.]
EXODUS 3:1-15
Two main themes stand out in this reading: the call of Moses and the
nature of God who calls. Moses’ experience resembles very closely the
call of the prophet Isaiah (Is. 6:1-8). This is not surprising since the
narrative likely took its final shape about the same period of Israel’s
history, the 9th and 8th centuries BCE. The pattern follows the same
typical literary form: a vision, a response of awe mingled with initial
receptiveness, the divine mission stated, and instructions given on the
means of carrying out the mission.
PSALM 105:1-6, 23-26, 45C
Again we find a psalm of thanksgiving celebrating the ancient tradition of
Israel as the elect people of God and God as the Lord of all human
history. For this psalmist, God's "deeds ... wonderful works...
miracles... (and) judgments," shaped this tradition (vss. 1-5). This
view of Israel's history must be seen as selective and idealized, for it
makes no mention whatsoever of the frequent apostasy of the chosen people.
JEREMIAH 15:15-21
[Alternate] This unusual passage expresses the prophet’s desire for God’s
vengeance against his persecutors. In so doing, he justifies his own
behaviour and laments that he still suffers. He receives inspiration from
God quite different from what he sought. He must repent of his own self-
pity so that others may be drawn to him. Only then will he be delivered
from wicked and ruthless enemies. God’s response to faithful servants is
to give them greater service.
PSALM 26:1-8
[Alternate] The psalmist pleads innocence and seeks God’s vindication
after being accused of some unstated but serious crime by godless and
unscrupulous enemies. A certain liturgical note creates the impression
that it may have been used in quasi-judicial settings for more than a
single individual.
ROMANS 12:9-21
This passage contains some very worldly counsel as applicable today as it
was nearly two millennia ago when Paul wrote it. In particular it
emphasizes what Paul meant by the new covenant relationship in which
these new Christians stood because of their faith and how they were to live
in the world as those whose relationships fully represented the will of God.
MATTHEW 16:21-28
These few verses contain two prophecies of different kinds. First there
is Jesus telling the disciples about his pending death and resurrection.
We must remember that Matthew wrote this with fifty to sixty years of
hindsight, so he knew what had actually happened. Undoubtedly this
colored his report of the prediction. He does give a reality check,
however, taken directly from the Markan account (Mark 8:32-33), by
including Peter's abrupt rejection of the prediction and Jesus' equally
severe rebuke (vss. 22-23). Luke's parallel passage excludes the incident
(Luke 9:21-22), but does tell of the prediction of Jesus' suffering, death
and resurrection as part of his admonition following Peter's messianic
confession. The fact that Jesus' teaching about his death is found in all
three gospels indicates that it had a very strong oral tradition behind
it.
A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.
EXODUS 3:1-15 Two main themes stand out in this reading: the call of
Moses and the nature of God who calls. The narrative comes from the J and
E documents of the 9th and 8th centuries respectively. It resembles very
closely the call of the prophet Isaiah (Is. 6:1-8). This is not
surprising since these documents were composed during the period of the
later monarchy when prophesy was on the ascendance. The pattern followed
in both narratives follows the same typical literary form: a vision, a
response of awe mingled with initial receptiveness, the divine mission
stated, and instructions given on the means of carrying out the mission.
In this instance, Moses' vision came in the natural setting of a burning
bush while shepherding sheep for his father-in-law. Isaiah's vision came
in ritual setting. Other prophets received their calls in historical
environments (Jeremiah) or mythological metaphors (Ezekiel). However
meaningful the symbol of the burning bush has been in the Reformed (i.e.
Presbyterian) tradition, here it means that Yahweh took the initiative to
reveal to Moses Yahweh's purposeful presence. The symbols of Yahweh's
presence exhibit a certain degree of confusion. Moses saw only the fire,
a physical manifestation of a deity's presence derived from animism. In
vs. 2 an angelic messenger, an imaginative embodiment of the deity,
appeared in the burning bush; yet in vs. 4 Yahweh spoke directly to Moses
in a typical prophetic communication (vss. 5-7). The implication is that
Yahweh is present, but does not come too close as to destroy the human
approached.
Moses' response to the vision (vs. 3) was again typical of the prophetic
form; he was awed but curious, thus showing his initial receptivity. Only
after hearing what would be required of him did his reluctance take hold.
The mission given to him involved great courage, great danger and a divine
promise. The situation of the Israelites in Egypt had become disastrous
and intolerable. This description, of course, was an after the fact
historical analysis by someone who enjoyed the benefits of the exodus.
All preaching and literature, especially not a few of the psalms, the
prophetic period featured the direct initiative of Yahweh in Israel's
history. Our modern difficulty is recognizing how, where and when that
prophetic insight still applies to contemporary events either in judgment
or in the fulfillment of promise.
The subsequent exchange between Moses and Yahweh centered on the authority
which Moses was to exercise in carrying out his mission. No one would
believe him; hence the importance of the name "I am." A name expressed the
nature of the person so designated. By this name the narrator asked,
"What kind of a god was this who intervened in Israel's destiny?" It
meant that Yahweh was present and intimately involved in shaping that
destiny. Yahweh knew what was happening to the Israelites in those days.
Yahweh hated injustice and helped the oppressed to find freedom. But
Yahweh also needed the help of Moses and all the descendants of the
patriarchs to accomplish the divine purpose. That is a message which
still rings true in our modern age and in a developing global society.
People of faith may still respond to the call of God to declare and
effectively implement God's purpose so prophetically described in this
story.
PSALM 105:1-6,23-26,45C Again we find a psalm of thanksgiving
celebrating the ancient tradition of Israel as the elect people of Yahweh
and Yahweh as the Lord of all human history. For this psalmist, Yahweh's
"deeds ... wonderful works ... miracles ... (and) judgments," shaped
this tradition (vss. 1-5). This view of Israel's history must be seen as
selective and idealized, for it makes no mention whatsoever of the
frequent apostasy of the chosen people.
The psalm was in existence at the time of the assembling of the Books of
Chronicles, certainly no earlier than the 5th or 4th centuries BCE. Vss.
1-15 of this psalm form part of the composite poem in 1 Chronicles 16:8-
36. Excerpts from Psalms 96 and 106 make up the remainder of that poem.
After reciting with the glories of the patriarchal period in vss. 7-22,
the psalmist turns to the period of the Exodus (vss. 23-36). This reading
has too many breaks in the story as shown by the abrupt truncation of the
Exodus narrative at vs. 26. It might be advisable to read the whole psalm
in worship to gain both the full meaning and the festive context of the
poem.
Obviously this psalm was created for worship purposes, probably at some
great national festival. The reading ends with the bare doxology, perhaps
a shout of praise from the congregation on hearing this recitation of
Israel's past. Yet this much glorified narrative had a noble purpose.
Like many of our own festive national events, it celebrates the identity
of the people and gives them a *raison d'ˆtre*. This makes the psalm more
relevant to our own time than to the distant time of Israel's exodus from
Egypt or to the period of the Second Temple in Jerusalem when Persian and
Greek overlords dominated the political and economic history of Yahweh's
chosen people.
Yahweh's covenant with Israel had a profoundly moral and spiritual
purpose. Yahweh, not the Israelite tribes, had initiated it not for
Israel's greatness and glory, which this psalm appears to celebrate so
profusely. God's intention was to create the grounds for divine
sovereignty in the world among all peoples. As Wilfred Cantwell Smith
pointed out in his *Towards A World Theology*, (Orbus Books, 1989)
theologians, historians and intellectuals in all religious traditions, as
well as political leaders in many nations, are only now beginning to come
to grips with this reality. With prophetic imagination, Smith sets this
task before the religious traditions of the world as the main intellectual
and political enterprise for the next century.
JEREMIAH 15:15-21 [Alternate] This unusual passage expresses the
prophet’s desire for God’s vengeance against his persecutors. In so
doing, he justifies his own behaviour and laments that he still suffers.
He receives inspiration from God quite different from what he sought. He
must repent of his own self-pity so that others may be drawn to him. Only
then will he be delivered from wicked and ruthless enemies. God’s
response to faithful servants is to give them greater service.
Some interpreters of this passage link it with 15:10-14. Those verses
refer to the Babylonian invasion and occupation. Vss. 13-14 duplicate
17:3-4 where they appear more suitable to the context. Despite expressing
the prophet’s strong lament similar to vss. 15-21, vss. 10-12 appear to be
a separate oracle.
Venting strong feelings of vengeance toward his enemies appears to have
been habitual for Jeremiah (cf. 11:20; 12:3; 17:18; 18:23; 20:11). We may
tend to see this as excessive, but we also must remember the suffering
from his own people that Jeremiah endured when he denounced their apostasy
from their covenant with Yahweh and willingness to negotiate subjugating
treaties with the invader. We only need to recall the reaction of some of
our fellow citizens today to the tragedies of terrorist bombings.
Another facet of Jeremiah’s character appears to have been self-
justification. He certainly found the word of the Lord the cause of much
pain and suffering for himself.
Like his contemporary Ezekiel, he saw the role of being a prophet in the
disastrous period of Israel’s exile as oppressive. He laments that it is
exceedingly so. He goes so far in vs. 18 as accusing Yahweh to have
failed him, even “deceitful” like a brook that runs only after rain. Yet
his lament brings forth a moment of intense inspiration. He too must
repent of his own self-pity and accusations against Yahweh. Only then can
he utter Yahweh’s will in these distressing times. A similar thought can
be found in expressive metaphors in 12:5. While much shorter, Yahweh’s
reply to his prophet is reminiscent of the dramatic reply to Job in Job
38-41.
PSALM 26:1-8 [Alternate] The psalmist pleads innocence and seeks God’s
vindication after being accused of some unstated but serious crime by
godless and unscrupulous enemies. A certain liturgical note creates the
impression that it may have been used in quasi-judicial settings for more
than a single individual.
Faithfully performing one’s religious duties can be a trap for self-
righteous people. This only increases the danger of hypocrisy and self-
deception. Some sense of this lurks behind the words of this psalm. It
has strong similarity to Pss. 3-5; 7 and 17, but it does not conclude with
a vow or offering of thanks and praise typical of most laments (cf. 5:11-
12; 7:17).
Boldly challenging Yahweh to test his heart and mind (vss.2-3), the
psalmist find reassurance in the rituals of the temple (vss. 6-7). He
appears to be aware of his coming fate, yet he cannot believe that Yahweh
would deal with him as with other, more obvious sinners (vs. 9). Unlike
Jeremiah, however, he does not give any indication of being the least bit
aware of any shortcomings in his own behaviour.
ROMANS 12:9-21 This passage contains some very worldly counsel as
applicable today as it was nearly two millennia ago when Paul wrote it.
In particular it emphasizes what Paul meant by the new covenant
relationship in which these new Christians stood because of their faith
and how they were to live in the world as those whose relationships fully
represented the will of God.
As a member of the covenant of Israel and a rabbi of the Pharisees, the
law had meant everything to Paul. It had expressed in very explicit terms
what was for all Jews the will of God. He had now come to see the will of
God in a new light. It had to do with relationships - with God and with
other human beings. Because of his new relationship with God through
faith in Jesus Christ, all his relationships with other people had totally
changed. So in this passage he describes what God intended human
relationships to be. If applied in everyday life, it would, as Paul had
advocated in vs. 2, transform and renew everyone's relationships.
The details of this moral counsel greatly resemble Paul's summary of the
"fruits of the Spirit" in Galatians 5:22-23. This should not surprise us,
for as a learned scholar Paul had come to understand with profound
insight, and in this letter sought to explain to this Jewish and Gentile
congregation in Rome, the relationship between Israel's ancient covenant
with Yahweh, a saving faith in Jesus, the Messiah/Christ, and the life of
ordinary citizens of the Roman world. Our world is not so different in
many ways, at least in its moral characteristics. So the practical
qualities of the Christian life Paul advocates for the Romans has ever bit
as much relevance for us. The question is not what will be the result,
but who will dare to do it.
MATTHEW 16:21-28 These few verses contain two prophecies of different
kinds. First there is Jesus telling the disciples about his pending death
and resurrection. We must remember that Matthew wrote this with fifty to
sixty years of hindsight, so he knew what had actually happened.
Undoubtedly this colored his report of the prediction. He does give a
reality check, however, taken directly from the Markan account (Mark 8:32-
33), by including Peter's abrupt rejection of the prediction and Jesus'
equally severe rebuke (vss. 22-23). Luke's parallel passage excludes the
incident (Luke 9:21-22), but does tell of the prediction of Jesus'
suffering, death and resurrection as part of his admonition following
Peter's messianic confession. The fact that Jesus' teaching about his
death is found in all three gospels indicates that it had a very strong
oral tradition behind it.
The same can be said of Jesus' words in the remaining part of the passage
which differ in all three gospels only in the defining of its audience.
In Matthew and Luke, only the disciples heard them. But in Mark, they
were spoken to the crowd whom Jesus deliberately called to him so that
they too would hear what the disciples heard.
The life of self-denial and sacrifice of which Jesus spoke has been real
enough for those who would follow him throughout the past two millennia.
It has filled the meditations of saints and martyrs as well as offering
rich metaphors for sacred poetry and the hymnody of the church. The cross
is but one of those metaphors, albeit the most powerful. The actual
experience, however, can be found in even the humblest life. For example,
how many great leaders in whatever field of endeavor attribute their
success to the sacrifice of their parents?
The eschatological prophecy which ends the passage has caused some
difficulty for interpreters, especially the statement in vs. 28 that some
of those who heard it would witness the second coming before their deaths.
Of course, that did not happen as predicted. Writing toward the end of
the 1st century, Matthew would have been well aware of this. Later
generations regarded this statement as metaphorical and claimed that had
been fulfilled at Pentecost.
On the other hand, Mark had spoken only of the necessity for acknowledging
the Son of Man and had separated that saying from the prediction about the
timing of the second coming as if they had different sources. Matthew put
the two statements together as a prediction of the last judgment. Since
eschatological sayings were common in those times, Jesus himself may well
have believed that God's glorious reign would come within a generation.
Nonetheless, he repeatedly counseled against speculating when this would
happen and insisted that people be prepared for it at any time. What is
more important from Matthew's point of view is the fact that Jesus is now
the risen and glorified sovereign before whom all humanity stands
accountable.
Mark may well give the essential character of judgment better than does
Matthew in this instance. How one responds to Jesus Christ himself, not
one's deeds or misdeeds, is what really matters. A 20th century poet, G.A
Studdert-Kennedy, has given an imaginative description of the final
judgment we all shall face. It amounts to a single word which Christ will
ask of everyone concerning our mortal life: "Well?"
copyright - Comments by Rev. John Shearman and page by Richard J. Fairchild, 2006
please acknowledge the appropriate author if citing these resources.
|