felix hominum

sermon notes Pentecost 7: Matthew 10: 40-42

Matthew 10:40-42

10:40 "Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.

10:41 Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet's reward; and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous;

10:42 and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple -- truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward."

I want to try to convince you, gentle reader, that this is not a descending order.  It is an ascending order.  Let me put it this way.  I find it more likely that one might recognize and welcome a prophet or a righteous man, than go out of one's busy way to do such an insignificant task as offering water "to one of these little ones."  But I have a sneaking suspicion that in the upside down structure of the Kingdom, we have more difficulty realizing that such small acts actually have eternal significance.

A prophet, a righteous person, and a little one - sounds like the beginning of a joke.  I have sometimes wondered about this passage from Matthew's Gospel.  Is this a descending order?  Do these actions and people start at the top, as it were, and then work their way down?   Or are they on equal footing?   Or is this an inversion; building up to the point where you can see the glory in giving a cup of cold water to one the little ones as actually the highest point?

I think one of the inversions of the Kingdom of God is that the greatest glory is found in unexpected places.  You can perhaps easily recognize a prophet or a righteous person as someone whom God 'favours' (don't take that the wrong way).   But when do we stop to see the eternal value in offering the cup of water to the "little ones"?   We naturally seek the "great and the glorious" - because there is something in us that pulls us toward glory. I recall the buzz for tickets when Desmond Tutu came to speak at the U of A Human Rights Lectureship.  The same committee had a member who expressed "absolutely no interest"  in having Jean Vanier come and talk about, well, the little ones.  Our perception has been skewed, and mistake importance for glory.  But enough on that theme for now.

This section comes as part of the missional discourse in Matthew's gospel.  There are themes of "welcoming" and "sending".  Jesus has just finished talking about the sending part in last week's reading.  You know - some will like you and some will really, really, not like you.  So we have heard about sending, and we have heard about the negative welcomes, and now we are going to hear about the "positive welcomings".

It is a rather staggering claim that Jesus is making in v 40.  The welcome of a disciple in mission is a welcoming of Christ, which is a welcoming of the Father.  It is marvellous that Jesus puts us in the same position as himself so many times: as He has been sent, so He sends us.

Well, it's time to move on to other tasks; we'll pick it up again in a day or two.

The latte has now been ordered, so a few more thoughts will be posted in a while. For those who find such things helpful, some takes on the patron/client relationship of representation to which Jesus could be alluding.  This is nothing particular to the ancient culture in which Jesus is speaking - it is a widespread political norm.  As St Paul says,  "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us".[2 Cor 5:20]  To welcome the representative is to welcome the one represented.  And as the last part of the missionary discourse in Matthew, we are finally reminded that we are sent as representatives of Christ, and Christ of God.

That word "welcome" comes up so many times that it would also seem an obvious choice for the focus of a sermon.  I suspect their are two basic approaches:  welcoming others and welcoming Christ.  Various leanings in the church might tend to emphasize one over the other;  I think that the two are necessarily connected, like the two great commandments.  We love God and we love our neighbour.  We welcome Christ and we welcome even the "little ones" in his name.  A few of us were chatting earlier today about this passage, and we got around to that old topic of how welcoming we are as a church.  The passage speaks to the whole ministry of hospitality which Christians need to practice.  It also predicates this ministry upon our own "welcome" to Christ:  how do we invite Him into our lives?

One other thing which keeps coming back to my mind is the notion that the giving of the cup of cold water - the "small act" - is the stuff of which a holy life is made.  Growth in discipleship and holiness is not to be found in a few occasional spurts of encounters with prophets, but in the thousands of small acts and decisions which make up the bulk of our lives. These are the daily acts of "giving the cup of cold water" which , practiced over the course of a lifetime, make up Christian character.

sermon notes Pentecost 5, Matthew 9:35-10:8, (9-23)

I'll be updating through the day, as time and caffeine allow...

For those who see the assigned texts each week, it is interesting to note the parentheses.  Now without looking for trouble, it is worth just thinking for a moment about what part of the reading is "optional":  the part in which Jesus speaks about the difficulties and persecutions of those who are involved in the mission described in the first part of the reading, and of the judgment against those communities which decide against receiving the "kingdom" which "has come near".  It is certainly understandable why some would not want such sayings included in the reading.  They are difficult to stomach for many.  Yet it is worth thinking about:  are such things truly optional?  Can we conveniently place parentheses around such things, as if they either are relegated to the past (perhaps they are specifically contextual to the setting) or that such difficulties should no longer be expected on this side of the Resurrection?  There are a whole host of questions and thoughts simply around the themes of judgment against "that town" which rejects the mission of the kingdom, and the persecution of those who proclaim the kingdom.

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

‘See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of them, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles. When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you at that time; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I tell you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

But back to the beginning of this week's reading. 

Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the labourers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest.’

Then Jesus went about... - What's with the "then"?  What has just happened before this reading?  Well, he has just called Matthew, done a few healings, and had spent some time in his own home town.  So now he goes to "all the cities and villages".  Even though Jesus will instruct his followers to go first to the towns of the Jews, there is a sense here that the mission of Jesus is expanding outward:  from his own town to all the cities and villages.  And remember as well that at the end of Matthew we have the greater expansion, from Jerusalem outward to all the nations.  There are a few things worth noting:  the good news is the kingdom;  it is accompanied by signs (the cures and healings which we have already seen in Matthew).  Jesus' compassion on the crowds is understood in the context of the lack of good shepherds to guide them.  In fact, Matthew tells us that they were "harassed and helpless".  The one terms makes us think in the active sense, the other in the passive.  Who is harassing these sheep?  Is it the false shepherds?  Or is it that they are in this state because there is a lack of shepherds, hence the call to ask for more labourers?  Bit of a mixed metaphor, but we get the picture.  For those who see that last verse as primarily a "call to action" (which it undoubtedly is), I would suggest that the primary action is that of "asking".  That is, our first action, prior to mission, is prayer.

Then Jesus summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to cure every disease and every sickness. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax-collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.

Here we have a great pool of saints' names for various Anglican churches, although "Judas Iscariot" has gone out of style for some reason...  Oh yes, "the one who betrayed him", which Matthew adds just to make sure we know.  But perhaps he adds that line in anticipation of the  verses which end the reading:  betrayal, persecution, "brother handing over brother".  I think it is a rather subtle rendering on Matthew's part.  Why should we be surprised about the persecutions and betrayals in 10: 9 ff?  We have already been reminded that even one of the 12 is capable of betrayal.  Shows Matt's cohesion, thought and style as a writer.  On a more positive note, we see that Jesus gives authority to his 12 disciples (including, at this point, we must include Judas).  The disciples are equipped for the mission which Jesus gives.

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, proclaim the good news, “The kingdom of heaven has come near.”

sermon notes Matthew 7: 21-29; Pentecost 3

Matthew 7:21-29

[21] "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. [22] On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?'  [23] Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'

[24] "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.  [25] The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on rock.  [26] And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not act on them will be like a foolish man who built his house on sand.  [27] The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell--and great was its fall!"

[28] Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astounded at his teaching, [29] for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.

For obscurity or detail sake, you could have a look at "Broken Parallelism in Matthew’s Parable of the Two Builders" (Direction, 2004).  Most English translations render an exact parallelism, instead of rendering the difference between verbs in v 25 and 27.

Sort of starting in the middle, I am struck by the imagery of the rain and the flood coming.  I think that what Jesus is getting at in train and flood imagery is the flash flood which can hit in the late winter rainy season.  Here's a brief bit of news on a recent flash flood near the Dead Sea:

The body of a Jewish American cantor who drowned in a flash flood near the Dead Sea on Monday was set to be flown back to the U.S. on Tuesday for burial, police said.

The man, David Tauber, was killed near the Dead Sea on Monday when floodwaters raced down the riverbed where he was hiking with his wife, according to police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld. His wife, Heather Tauber, survived and was treated by medics on the scene...

"[The downpour] was a minor event until it suddenly turned tragic," Merav Ayalon, a spokesperson for Kibbutz Ein Gedi said.

News story here.

That last quote is telling.  There is a suddenness to the floods with which Jesus' audience would have been familiar.  Not like our idea of flood - we have a few days forecast, we watch rivers rise, we can predict the rate at which things will happen.  Anyway, just a little food for thought before I get my caffeine fix and work on the rest of the reading.

 

sermon notes Pentecost 2; Matthew 6: 24-34

What with the early Easter and Pentecost and all that, we are going with: Isaiah 49:8-16a;  Psalm 131;  1 Corinthians 4:1-5;  Matthew 6:24-34.  Things will be filled in over the next couple of days...  For now I have to call someone about a small leak in one of the rads in the sanctuary.

Matthew 6:24-34
[24] "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.  [25] Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?

Remember that just a few few verses before this, Jesus has told his hearers that there heart and their treasure seem to share the same geography - where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.  So on one level he is following up on this.

While there is a tendency to think primarily in terms of trusting (trusting God vs trusting wealth), Jesus begins by talking about serving.  The language used to set the scene is one of servitude or slavery.  Trust involves choice, but slavery involves no choice - it is forced upon you.  What we are faced with is not a decision as to whether or not we will serve a master, but only what kind of master we will serve.  And Jesus wants to prod the fence sitters:  "a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other."  There does not seem to be much middle ground there.  Can God and wealth be so opposed?  Well, perhaps not, but serving God and serving wealth certainly are.

do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink

Someone I read pointed out that we can trust Jesus to take away our sins and give us eternal life, but we have trouble trusting him for the next sandwich.  Says a lot, doesn't it?

Jesus gives us a roundabout question:  of course we are supposed to agree with him that "life is more than food, and the body more than clothing".  But we are then faced with the question:  what is the "more"?  What the "more" is will be told in verse 33.  But for now we are told what we are to avoid:  worrying about life in terms of food, drink and clothing.  In a society whose financial (at least retirement) industry is built on the foundation of worry, this is either a frightening or a freeing message.  Makes me think of the collect for morning prayer (BCP): "whose service is perfect freedom". 

[26] Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?  [27] And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? [28] And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, [29] yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these.  [30] But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you--you of little faith?

Jesus turns our attention not to the negative characteristics of "wealth", but to the positive characteristics of God.  It is interesting how his persuasion proceeds.  He does not preach here against the evils of wealth or possessions.  Instead, Jesus asks us to consider the character of God, our "heavenly Father."  This is the true starting point, and a good lesson in apologetics:  begin with the goodness of God, rather than with the fault of that which you are trying to condemn. 

Secondly, we are invited to consider ourselves in terms of realizing that we are worth something to God - are you not of more value than they? We might tend to slip over this verse, perhaps out of a fear of  - oh I don't know -  thinking too highly of ourselves or something like that.  Fair enough;  there is more than enough back-patting in Christian circles;  why do we need an affirmation or mini-course in self esteem at this point?  I'm not really sure, but for some reason Jesus asks us to consider, really consider, that we have value in God's eyes.  I wonder if this is more connected with the preceding thought:  our value in God's eyes is due to the goodness of His character, rather than of ours.

[31] Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What will we eat?' or 'What will we drink?' or 'What will we wear?'  [32] For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.  [33] But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.  [34] So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today's trouble is enough for today."

There is a good deal of food for thought when this gospel passage is heard alongside Isaiah:

They shall feed along the ways, on all the bare heights shall be their pasture;  they shall not hunger or thirst, neither scorching wind nor sun shall strike them down, for he who has pity on them will lead them, and by springs of water will guide them...But Zion said, "The LORD has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me." Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you.  See, I have inscribed you on the palms of my hands.

The question about what we shall eat and drink takes can take on a new meaning when heard in the context of communion.  With what do we feed our souls?  There is a marvellous answer to that question for those who hold to a higher view of the sacramental grace offered to us in the Eucharist.

Will continue tomorrow...

Tent dwelling; near Bergama, central west Turkey (May 2008)

sermon notes Easter 4: John 10: 1-10

[in progress - I'll update it over the course of the next two coffees - was looking for some specific pics I took over the last several years which give us a good illustration of this saying:  basically you have a rock wall enclosure, and the shepherd lays down in the opening as the "gate" - vivid image]

All the other readings this Sunday also deal with the theme of shepherding.  The reading from 1 Peter and Ps 23 are both obvious, but the reading from Acts 2: 42-47 also deals with shepherding. It might not be obvious what the connection is between the Acts reading and the reading from John's Gospel, but I believe there is one.  In this part of John's Gospel, Jesus does not refer to himself as a shepherd;  rather he is the the gate and/or the gatekeeper.  In this way he is the one by whom true 'shepherd' (as opposed to bandits and thieves) come in and take care of the sheep.  So Jesus points also to the other 'shepherds' of the flocks - those whom God has called to serve that ministry for the flock.  They are not to 'climb over the wall'.  That is, they need to go through the gate/keeper, who is Jesus, in order to have an authentic ministry among the sheep.  It is here that the reading from Acts comes in.  It gives us a model of what authentic ministry of the shepherds of the flock looked like.  Acts gives us a snapshot of early ministry among the 'sheep' of those shepherds who have come in by way of Jesus.

In the sermons I've preached and heard about passages which deal with the whole shepherd/sheep thing, I have found what I think are two errors of approach.  The first is the tendency to make the passages more about the character of the sheep than about the character of the shepherd. No doubt there is room for looking at both, but I think we need to look more at the character of the shepherd first, and then look at the character of the sheep.  Why start with ourselves, why not start by asking what it is that a shepherd of the people is supposed to do?  Shepherd was a term used of both religious and politic al leaders in the ancient world.  We all see that the image has a long history in the Old Testament.  The leaders of Israel were referred to as shepherds.  We have of course the familiar story of David, the shepherd who was to become King;  we have the story of Moses, who was tending the flocks when he received his calling.

Which brings me to the second thing:  what do we think about being called sheep?  I got into a conversation a few days ago at a local café about the question – what do you think Jesus means when he refers to his people as sheep?  That is, why are we considered sheep?  There was the usual “dumb animals” bit, you know, how we are simply in need of shepherds and how we tend to wander.  This line of interpretation, while it has some value, also has its deficiencies.  There are two better places to start.  First is that it is not so much about the character of the sheep, as the character of the shepherd.   

Throughout the scriptures we can tend to forget that sheep were valuable animals.  A man’s wealth was indicated by the number of flocks he had.  Sheep, from the point of view of the shepherd, are valuable.  That is why we hear parables in which Jesus tells us that the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep, that he will leave the 99 who are safe and go after the one who is lost.  If you are a sheep, you are worth something, you are valued, you are sought after.

10:1 Very truly, I tell you, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate but climbs in by another way is a thief and a bandit. 2 The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.

Somewhere I have some pics of this rural village scene.  It's on my other computer.  I'll post it if I find time tomorrow.  Gives you a good physical image.  The old stone-walled sheep pen, shepherds (all rather young, by the way)...

While Jesus is referred to as the good shepherd later in this section of John, in this reading he is the gate or the gatekeeper, and it appears that he is able to subcontract shepherding out to others.  Well, okay, he calls others to act as shepherds.  So this passage speaks of Jesus as the way by which those called come to be among the flock.  It is an image of the shared ministry which God has given to Jesus and to his Body, the Church.  There will be those who are more than happy to fill in specific names for thieves and bandits, but let's leave that alone for now.

It is interesting to note that the way the "figure of speech" is told in one order here at the start, and then told in reverse order in the explanation (vv 7ff).  Here Jesus begins with the negative:  there is a history of bandits and thieves who were supposed to shepherd Israel, but didn't.  The image here is one of access to the sheep.  How does one get in among the sheep?  The way to get in is through Jesus.  On one level this addresses issues of leadership.   If someone in the sheepfold did not get in by the gate (who is Jesus), then that person is up to no good.

Question:  "The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep hear his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out."  To whom is the pronoun referring?  [A] The gatekeeper opens the gate for the shepherd. The sheep hear the voice of the shepherd, and follow it.  [B] The gatekeeper opens the gate for the shepherd.  The sheep hear the voice of the gatekeeper, and follow it.  Only when we get to the verses following this reading (11 ff) do we definitely identify Jesus as the shepherd.

4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5 They will not follow a stranger, but they will run from him because they do not know the voice of strangers."

6 Jesus used this figure of speech with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.   7 So again Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep.  8 All who came before me are thieves and bandits; but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

One of the key words in John's Gospel is "life". Just google it and you will see what a dominant theme this is for Jesus in John's Gospel.  I have a sense that only those who have come to encounter the risen Christ will begin to grasp what this abundant life is.  Not "what it means", but what it is. There is a difference.  And perhaps for some who come to our churches, sing a few songs, echo a few prayers and go away asking themselves "Is this all there is?", we need to point them to this.

What is it to have abundant life?  Those who have never read Walter Bruggeman's work on the liturgy of abundance and the myth of scarcity might find it an interesting read. 

The language Jesus uses is imagery of overflowing, of excess.  We spend our lives crying out “not enough”, while Jesus offers us abundant life. We spend our time – of which there is never enough, making money – of which there is never enough, so that we can live in our house (which is never big enough) and drive our car (which is never new enough) and spend our free time (of which there is never enough) relaxing, only to repeat the cycle, sometimes in the company of a spouse (who is never-fill in the blank- ___ enough, children (who are never well behaved enough), and the constant cry is never enough.  We are asked to give to the Church – but we live in such an attitude of “never enough” that we are afraid to take even the simplest risk of faith.

One of the temptations here is to impose our own notion of 'abundance' on the words of Jesus.  One form can be the prosperity Gospel (God loves you and wants you to be rich), but I don't think that is what Jesus had in mind.

sermon notes: Easter 3: Luke 24:13-35

The "road to Emmaus" story from Luke's Gospel is a favorite for many people.  There are so many things in it which resonate with us.  There is the theme of walking together, of Christ "coming alongside" us unawares, there is the mysterious "burning in our hearts" as Jesus explains the Scriptures, the theme of not/recognizing Jesus, knowing Him in the breaking of the bread, we have two disciples walking away from Jerusalem only to return to Jerusalem.  It's a start, at which I will pick away over the next day or two.

13 Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened.  15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, 16 but their eyes were kept from recognizing him.

The opening of the story shows two disciples walking away from Jerusalem.  It is a great image with which to begin.  After all the events of the past several days (let alone years), we have these two walking away, perhaps more than a bit disillusioned about the whole Jesus project.

One of the most puzzling, but most consistent features of the resurrection appearances of Jesus is the fact that so many of his followers did not recognize him when he first appeared.  On Easter Sunday we heard the story of Mary, who mistook him for the gardener, and now today we have two disciples who also fail to recognize him at first.

They are walking along and discussing the recent events in Jerusalem.  And in the midst of their walking, Jesus himself just sidles in and joins the group.  That in itself is an interesting feature:  Jesus comes along, without making a particular announcement about his arrival.  And like so many others, “their eyes were kept from recognizing him.”  Now before you jump to any conclusions, perhaps we need to ask why their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 

Some have supposed that Jesus – God – had done something to prevent them from recognizing him, as if their “tunnel vision” was something imposed on them from the outside.  But a closer look at the story reveals that it was they themselves who kept their eyes from recognizing Jesus.

17 And he said to them, "What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?" They stood still, looking sad.  18 Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, "Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?" 19 He asked them, "What things?" They replied, "The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him.

Jesus' question to them has an arresting quality - it stops them in their tracks.  Imagination can fill in the blanks here with several possibilities.  "They stood still, looking sad."  Perhaps they are absorbed in their grief and disappointment or confusion over what they thought would turn out differently.  It is interesting to compare their description of Jesus with the declaration of Thomas from last week.  Do they have a limited understanding of (or faith in) who Jesus is?

21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place.  22 Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning,  23 and when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive.  24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him."

"But we had hoped..."  And here I think we can all fill in the blank with our own personal disappointment or disillusionment.  We had hoped God would do this or that, we had hoped that Jesus would do this or that.  It is such a common experience - we had hoped for this or that, but we are disappointed in our hope.  The two disciples had heard the testimony of the women (but it seems that testimony was dismissed).  It is really quite ironic - the two disciples telling Jesus about some key events in His life, and then telling Him about their own expectations of what they hoped the Messiah would be.  And of course, He is the One who redeems Israel, but not in the way they think He does.  This misunderstanding of the kind of "Messiah" Jesus is sets up Jesus' response to them:

25 Then he said to them, "Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared!  26 Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?" 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

Now it is Jesus' turn to talk about Himself.  The disciples' explanation is inadequate, and we have Jesus explaining His own life and ministry.  Jesus' words here probably strike us as a bit of a dressing down for these two grieving disciples.  Not a terribly "pastoral" way of engaging these two!  While we don't have specific footnotes on Jesus' exegetical interpretation of the Old Testament, we have an image of Jesus telling us that the Hebrew Scriptures tell us about the Messiah.  Specifically, Jesus gives us the images of "suffering" and then "entering into glory".  When Jesus "begins with Moses" we can take that to mean the whole of the Torah - the 5 books of Moses at the beginning of our Bible.

As a connecting note, we might want to jump ahead to where Jesus is "known in the breaking of the bread", but we also come to learn that their hearts were "burning" while Jesus opened the Scriptures to them.  Word and Sacrament go together. 

28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. 29 But they urged him strongly, saying, "Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over." So he went in to stay with them.  30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them.  31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.  32 They said to each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?"

Jesus is quite a character in this story.  First he comes up alongside them unawares, then gives them a lesson with saying that He himself is the object of the lesson, and now it seems he gives the impression that he intends to go on ahead of them.  Maybe he really was going to go on ahead.  Maybe He was giving them an opportunity to show love by offering Him hospitality.  The image here is a reversal of Jesus' call to the disciples to watch with him even one hour only a few nights ago.  A million sermons revolve around the breaking of the bread as a "eucharistic" kind of image - which is not an entirely bad thing in and of itself.  But the disciples' words about their hearts burning while He opened the Scriptures is the necessary prelude to recognizing Him in the breaking of the bread.  Word and Sacrament.

It is also interesting to note that while they invite Jesus to stay with them, it is actually Jesus who performs the duty of the host:  it is Jesus who offers them hospitality by breaking the bread and giving it to them.  Even when the disciples think they have something to offer Jesus, it is really Jesus who is offering something to them.

33 That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together.  34 They were saying, "The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!"  35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he had been made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

And now the physical imagery changes direction.  Instead of heading away from Jerusalem, they are now returning.  (I keep thinking of the Neoplatonic exitus-reditus theme, but somehow I don't think I will work that into a sermon...)  At any rate, the disciples now return with joy and a sense of urgency - "that same hour".  And they join the other witnesses of the Resurrected Christ:  both what had happened "on the road" and at the "breaking of the bread."

my Lord & my God

It has seemed to me that the story of "doubting" Thomas is not about doubt in general, but about a specific kind of doubt in particular.  Of course one can take from the story some general principles and ideas, and use it as a jumping off point for a discussion about the nature and place of a general kind of doubt.  But I rather suspect that the doubt of Thomas is not exactly the same kind of doubt one might encounter everyday.

Thomas was, of course, a Jew.  And as a Jewish disciple, I suspect that his doubts did not revolve around general questions of the existence of God.  Thomas was not an early 20th century existentialist philosopher, nor a 1st century Dawkins.  It was not a question of the existence of God - Yahweh - around which Thomas' doubts hovered.  It was a much more specific kind of question.  Thomas does not ask "Is there a God?".  Rather, what he really asks is "Who is Jesus?".

Thomas' declaration is a result of this encounter, not the prelude to it.  It is only after he has an encounter with the Risen Christ that he declares "my Lord and my God".  And it is here in these two small words that we most often run into trouble.  The Risen Christ is both Lord (the One to whom we owe allegiance, the One we are called to follow and obey) and God (the One whom we worship).

I find it fascinating that Jesus offers Thomas the sort of "proof" which he wanted.  "Unless I put my hands in the nail holes, and my hand in his side, I will not believe".  This strikes me as a very different sort of "proof" than we are accustomed to.  Yet I am not certain from reading the text that Thomas takes advantage of that "proof".  Perhaps an encounter with the Risen Christ changes Thomas' need for such proof.  Thomas seeks neither an argument or apologetic for the existence of God;  he seeks an encounter with the Person of the Risen Christ.  And so, I gather, do we.

Workshop: Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel & its Contexts

Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel & its Contexts

A Workshop:  Dept of History and Classics

Ludwig-Maximilians Universität, Munich & University of Alberta, Edmonton

April 7-11, 2008 at the University of Alberta

Schedule

Dept info page here.

This workshop brings together scholars from the Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich (LMU) and the University of Alberta, along with colleagues from other European and Canadian universities. This workshop is part of a newly founded cooperation between LMU and the UofA and is conceived as the first of two workshops. The second is planned for Munich (2009).

As Tyler said, consider this an invitation.

Good news, then good advice

When I’m talking to people about the Gospel I sometimes ask them, ‘What do you think the essential message of Christianity really is?’ Far and away the most common reply is something like this: ‘Love thy neighbour’. On this understanding, a Christian is someone who loves their neighbour, tries to be a good person and so on. People will even say to me, “I don’t go to church, but I try to be a good person, and I think that’s more important’.

There’s a basic problem with this answer, and I’ll tell you what it is. In the New Testament the essential Christian message is called ‘the Gospel’, and the word ‘Gospel’ means ‘Good News’. But ‘love thy neighbour’ is not good news – it’s good advice. Quite excellent advice, in fact; the world would be a much better place if people just learned to love their neighbour as they love themselves. I don’t have a word to say against that idea; I just want to point out that it’s not the first and most important part of the Christian message. The first and most important part is not a bit of advice, but a wonderful announcement of good news.

thoughts from Tim

how to read proverbs

I'm pleased to see that Tyler at Codex is back doing some posting on aspects of Old Testament scholarship for the rest of us.  He has a few snippets on reading the book of Proverbs, and a little bit of insight from his course on Wisdom literature.

His archives are full of helpful and interesting stuff on OT topics.