Monday, October 30, 2023

Sermon: Who Is Jesus?


Lectionary: Proper 25(A)

Introduction

Who is Jesus and what is his manifesto? These are the two central questions that swirl around Jerusalem during the week starting with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and his crucifixion.

Our reading today comes from a part of that final week. Mark’s account has a more precise timeline than Matthew. Days blend in Matthew’s account. Also, the sequence of events differs between the accounts. Over the next little while, I will point out some of these differences. Matthew borrowed from Mark but put his own spin to the traditions around the story of Jesus. Matthew arranged things to better suit his purposes. I think that too often, we have been told and taught that these are historical records, but they are not. They contain history, but they are primarily devotional memories of Jesus.

So…

Setting Up the Context

Jesus had entered Jerusalem on Sunday where the crowds that were accompanying Jesus had declared him to be “Son of David.”[1] On the other hand, the rest of the people in Jerusalem thought him to be a prophet from Nazareth.[2]

In Matthew Jesus goes to the Temple on the same day and drives out the merchants from the grounds. In Mark, this occurs on the following day.[3] In Matthew’s account the children who then approached Jesus declared him to be “the Son of David.”[4] He leaves Jerusalem and stays overnight in Bethany.[5]

On Tuesday, Jesus returns to Jerusalem and along the way he curses a fig tree. In Matthew’s account, the tree immediately withers.[6] In Mark’s account, the cursing of the tree occurs before the temple cleansing, and the withering occurs the following day.[7]

The primary conflict that Jesus encounters with the religious authorities occurs on this same day. It begins with them asking Jesus about where he receives his authority.[8] Even though it does not directly question his identity, it is indeed a question about his origins and identity. Jesus turns the question back on his questioners and asks under whose authority John the Baptizer preached. They refuse to answer, seeing that both the affirmative and negative responses would place them in a bind. As a result, Jesus too, refuses to answer the question that was posed to him.

This is followed by Jesus speaking in parables, which is followed by a question about paying taxes posed by some of the Pharisees in cahoots with some Herodians, and then a question about the resurrection posed by the Sadducees.[9] No one can trip up Jesus into giving a compromising answer.

Question Asked and Question Posed

It is in this setting that the question about the Greatest Commandment is posed to Jesus. In Matthew, it is posed as a hostile challenge to Jesus.[10] In Mark, the questioner does not appear to have hidden motives, and appears possibly to even be friendly.[11]

In Matthew’s account, Jesus’ response to the question of the Greatest Commandment is then followed by his asking a question about “David’s Son” to the questioners; and these might be seen as the climax of the series of conflict episodes. The series of stories ends with, “No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.”[12]

The Question of Jesus’ Identity

The question of Jesus’ identity begins Matthew’s gospel. The gospel immediately identifies Jesus as the Messiah and the son of David. It provides a genealogy in which David is central (the fourteen generation divisions of the genealogy is a reference to David).[13] The irony is that Jesus is a son of David only through adoption.[14] This question of Jesus’ identity and mission has come to a head during this final, Passion week.

At first glance, the two stories seem rather unrelated. The first one, about the Greatest Commandment, is likely one of the most known and appears to be about as straightforward as a story can be. The second one seems odd and the logic behind Jesus’ question seems opaque.

Word Linkage in Hebrew Literature

One of the ways in which two seemingly different subjects are linked together by ancient authors is the use of a common word or phrase between the two sections. The two sections in today’s text have the word and title “Lord” common to both. A key to interpretation and understanding why the two sections can be related is to read the text through the lens of the word “Lord.”[15]

The Greatest Commandment(s)

Jesus is asked which is the greatest commandment. His answer comes from the Shema prayer, one of the centerpieces of Jewish religion. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”[16] But then, Jesus continues by adding a second commandment. “And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”[17] And Jesus follows it with a commentary of his own, “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”[18]

First, Jesus affirms that religious traditions that help draw a person closer to God through worship and rituals is valuable and necessary. These are ways through which a created being can gain understanding of the awe and holiness of the Creator and their relationship to God. It is to be expressed through love of the entirety of being toward God.

Love, in English, has the connotation of affection and feelings. But love, when found in the Bible, is much more than that. It can include affections and feelings, but it is also loyalty and total devotion. And it must include activities that express total devotion. Love for God cannot be merely intellectual, and cannot be merely meditation and prayer, or individual devotion and worship. Love for God includes outward manifestations of devotion to God.

And religion might be easier if it stopped there. It would be easier if holiness was a set of rules that defined how to keep from becoming defiled. And it is easy for religions to devolve into a set of such rules and outward expressions of devotion.

But Jesus does not leave things that simple. He quotes a sentence from part of the holiness code found in Leviticus. To be holy as God is holy is to relate to others as God relates to God’s creation. Love for neighbor stands at the same level as love for God. The two are not identical, but one cannot be expressed apart from the other. When a person calls God “Lord” that means that person has agreed to follow God’s commands, and that includes not just devotion and loyalty for God, but devotion and loyalty to one’s fellow human neighbors.

Whose Son Is Jesus?

After answering the question posed to him, Jesus asks a question of his own. “What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?”[19] This question brings things back full circle to Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, and for Matthew’s gospel account, the very reason it was written.

The Pharisees respond, “The son of David.” This answer is correct, but incomplete.

Jesus follows up with a riddle. “How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?”[20]

It needs to be noted that the longed-for Messiah had no inherent connotation of divinity in Jewish understanding. Messiah simply means Anointed One, and in theory, it could be applied to any individual.

The Messiah from the line of David was most likely expected to be in the pattern of David, a warrior and a king; one who would defeat foreign occupiers and fulfill the nationalistic desires of the people.

Adding New Interpretation to Scripture

What Jesus does is redefine the identity of the Messiah. He uses the quote from Psalm 110 to show that the conquering descendant of David would be someone that David would and could call as “Lord.”[21] To call someone “Lord” necessarily means that person or being is greater than the other. No sovereign would call one of their descendants “Lord.”[22] So, is the Messiah David’s son or not? If the Messiah is someone greater than David, who could it possibly be?

The religious leaders have no response and dare not ask any more questions of Jesus. From this side of Christ and as Christians, we assume that they should have known the answer and just didn’t want to admit that Jesus was son of David, the Messiah, and Lord. But perhaps that is not being entirely fair. There is no surviving record that Psalm 110 was viewed as a Messianic psalm.[23] The use of Psalm 110 as pointing to the Messiah, and Jesus in particular, is a New Testament innovation.[24]

Perhaps this was Jesus’ cryptic way of self-identifying as Messiah and Lord. That through it he wanted to break his audience out of traditional understandings and expectations of the Messiah. Or, to look at it another way, if you claim God as your Lord, if David called one of his descendants Lord, if the Messiah is the son of David, and if Jesus is being proclaimed as the son of David, and if Jesus is performing signs that signify authority that appears to be straight from God, perhaps one should consider the possibility that Jesus is the Messiah, and if the Messiah, then also Lord.

Conclusion

If one concludes that Jesus is Lord, then up to this point he has lived and exemplified what it means to love God and to love neighbor. And over the next few days, Jesus will further live out what it means to be fully devoted and loyal to humanity and loyal to God’s desires to be with humankind, to the very acceptance of death on a cross.

If God’s love and holiness means being devoted to the good of even one’s enemies, ones that would torture and kill you, what does that mean for those who claim that Jesus is Lord? If God’s love and holiness means being devoted to the good of even one’s enemies, to ones that would torture and kill you, what does that mean for those who claim that Jesus is Lord? Are we willing to take up our crosses and follow him? In this day where hostilities are real, to encourage and promote division is encouraged, where violence is all too frequent, and where historical enmities flare into wanton murder, how shall we live? Who is our Lord?


Works Cited

Feasting on the Gospels: A Feasting on the Word Commentary. (2013). Feasting on the Gospels: Matthew, Volume 2. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Feasting on the Word: preaching the revised common lectionary. (2011). Feasting on the Word: Year A, Volume 4. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

James, J. T. (2023). Psalms for Normal People. Harleysville, PA: The Bible for Normal People.

McGrath, J. F. (2023). The A to Z of the New Testament: Things Experts Know That Everyone Else Should Too. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.



[1] Matthew 21:9.

[2] Matthew 21:10-11.

[3] Mark 11:12, 15.

[4] Matthew 21:15.

[5] Matthew 21:17.

[6] Matthew 21:18-20.

[7] Mark 11:12-14, 20-21.

[8] Matthew 21:23.

[9] Matthew 21:28-33.

[10] Matthew 22:34-40.

[11] Mark 12:28-34.

[12] Matthew 22:46.

[13] Gematria was used to denote significance of names. (McGrath, 2023, pp. 25-26)

[14] No, Luke’s genealogy doesn’t provide a tracing back to David through Mary. (McGrath, 2023, p. 28)

[15] “Having identified ‘Love the Lord’ as the greatest of all commandments, Jesus next probes the term ‘Lord’ with his Pharisaic interlocutors.” (Feasting on the Word: preaching the revised common lectionary, 2011, pp. Kindle, approximate location 7278)

[16] Matthew 27:37, from Deuteronomy 6:5.

[17] Matthew 22:39, from Leviticus 19:18.

[18] Matthew 22:40.

[19] Matthew 22:42.

[20] Matthew 22:43-45.

[21] There is plenty of evidence that David didn’t write Psalm 110 (and likely little to none of the Psalms). But Jesus makes the assumption that David did. That doesn’t prove David wrote the Psalm, contrary to some traditional interpretations and logic. (James, 2023, pp. 41-43)

[22] (Feasting on the Gospels: A Feasting on the Word Commentary, 2013, p. 577)

[23] (Feasting on the Word: preaching the revised common lectionary, 2011, p. Kindle locaton approximately 7327)

[24] And this raises the question, did Jesus actually quote Psalm 110, or was it the New Testament authors who provided these connections based on their interpretation of Jesus?

Sunday, October 08, 2023

Sermon: *Not* Set In Stone

The Ten Commandments (Bible Card)
The Ten Commandments (Bible Card)

 Lectionary: Proper 22

Text: Exodus20:1-4, 7-9, 12-20; Philippians 3:4b-14

Introduction: Connotations of Law

The relationship between Christians and law in the Bible is complicated. On the one hand, many Christians are quick to state that the law was done away with (or something like that) because of Jesus Christ and grace. But on the other hand, many Christians, especially many American Christians, believe wholeheartedly that many biblical laws, starting with the Ten Commandments, are necessary to the proper functioning of society. Traditionally, Christians have been quick to label Jews as legalistic in terms of redemption, deliverance, and salvation. At the same time, many Christians may not impose too many obstacles for someone to approach Christ, but once you do, there is a laundry list times ten, of standards (but don’t call them laws or rules) that you are expected to live in to and up to.

Maybe for some of you, this sounds rather foreign. If that is the case, good for you and thank God you never had to experience it.

But for others, the mention of law in relation to the Bible, Christianity, and religion might be a huge trigger for fear, judgment, and feelings of inadequacy and failure.

Psalm 119 is an entire acrostic poetry on how wonderful and good, liberating, and joyful God’s law is. Is there something we are missing when we think about law in the Bible?

Static View of Law

In our present society, “law” has certain connotations, images, and even feelings associated with its mention and use. Among some of the positive ones include stability of society, predictable expectations of behavior, and baselines for many types of relationships. Some negative associations might be rigidity and inflexibility, harshness and leniency (depending on what one wants from the law), loopholes, too many laws, and unequal applications. Law may also invoke neutral associations, especially regarding its ideals, even if they are not often or ever met. These might include such things as justice, equality, and fairness. Law is usually thought to be stable and permanent. Once a law is handed and written down, it is expected to be unchanging except in the rarest of circumstances. Our entire society operates on the premise of that predictability.

When Christians brought up in the Western tradition (that’s us) think about the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, and how it was given to Israel, we imagine something like what is depicted by Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments, receiving the law on tablets of stone, written by God himself. “How much more permanent and eternal could it be?” we ask ourselves.

I hadn’t thought much about it before, but the story of Esther contains interesting explanations about the law of the Medes and the Persians. One such example is found right near the beginning. It reads,

19 Now, if the king wishes, let him send out a royal order and have it written into the laws of Persia and Media, laws no one can ever change. (Esther 1:19a CEB)

When the text goes out of the way to explain something, that is often a clue that what is being explained might be foreign to the audience. Here, “have it written into the laws of Persia and Media, laws no one can ever change,” is certainly used to make a point to the king about a desired effect of the law, but I also think (because it is repeated in Esther 8:8 and found in Daniel 6:8) that it explains something that is not a Jewish norm regarding how they think about laws. (Both Esther and Daniel are late post-exilic writings).

To us, the practice of around laws of ancient Persians seems overly harsh, especially if the laws are impetuous and unwise, or conniving and malicious. But even in our society, dumb, self-serving, and even malicious laws get passed and we know how difficult they are to change. In practice then, I think that our society is quite like the Persians.

Dynamic View of Law

How then, did the ancient Israelites and Jews view law and what were their practices?

From a commentary on this portion of Exodus, Thomas Dozeman writes,

“Law in the Bible resists a simple definition. It embraces many words and metaphors, including torah (tôrâ), judgment (mišpāṭ), statute (ḥôq), commandment (miṣwâ), testimony (ʿēdût), and covenant (bĕrît). The dynamic character of law is conveyed through metaphors of motion and speech. Law is alive, deriving from the words (dĕbārîm) or voice (qôl) of God. The words are codified in writing, including the Ten Words (ʿăśeret haddĕbārîm), the Book of Torah (sēper hattôrâ) and the Book of the Covenant (sēper habbĕrît). Once codified the law is anything but static. Rather, it creates a roadway (derek) through life upon which humans are able to walk (hālak). The vocabulary indicates the breadth of the subject matter, while the metaphors underscore the dynamic quality of law as a resource for change through time. Jewish legal interpretation employs the metaphor of walking, halakah, to underscore the dynamic character of law in ongoing tradition.” (Dozeman, 2009, p. 716) [Emphasis mine.]

And Dozeman continues,

“Ancient laws function differently than the modern Western model of law, where the legal judgments of the court are comprehensive and clearly expressed in written language available to participants in advance. The ancient legal practice is not tied exclusively to written laws, but depends on the context of the situation to resolve dispute.” (Dozeman, 2009, p. 717)

Pete Enns, in Exodus for Normal People writes,

“Debate and wisdom always have been necessary for us to figure out how to obey God’s laws. This is why, strictly speaking, Judaism is not so much focused on obeying the Law of Moses ‘on its own terms,’ but on the long tradition of working out what it means to obey ambiguous and ancient laws as circumstances change over time… The common view among Christians, that Jews are slaves to the letter of the Law, does not remotely do justice to the subtlety of Jewish tradition.” (Enns, 2021, p. 107)

From these quotations, we begin to see how vastly different the modern, Western conception of law is vs. how the ancient Israelites and Jews thought and worked with their laws. For us, the law is the end of arguments. Sure, decisions might be appealed, as happens in our legal system. But eventually, a final verdict, a final interpretation of the law as it is written, is handed down, a precedent is set, and that interpretation is understood to be mostly permanent, except in very rare cases. For Jews however, the law is the beginning of contemplation, dialogue, argument, and a contextual application that is assumed to not be the final word on a matter and application can change as context changes. And this includes the Ten Commandments.

Amy-Jill Levine writes,

“First, the Torah is not a law code in the sense of a comprehensive set of laws intended for use by the court, and in a number of cases, such as the Decalogue, it is unclear how or by whom they were enforced. Second, it contains several collections of laws that reflect different periods, authors, and audiences.” (Levine, 2020, p. 206)

Progression of Law

The very literary development of the Hebrew scriptures and its Torah portion shows evidence of gradual development and change to the Law.

We are probably of the impression that the Ten Commandments is the first, the earliest, and the foundation for all the other laws of the Torah. But the literary history indicates otherwise. Levine continues, “Biblical scholars call the earliest collection, Exodus 20:22-23:33, the Covenant Collection.” (Levine, 2020, p. 206) The Decalogue is a later development.

Furthermore, there are two versions of the Decalogue, and there is evidence that suggests that the version found in Deuteronomy 5 is the earlier version. In this (Deut.) version, the reason for the Sabbath is humanitarian: the deliverance from slavery. In the Exodus version, the reason for the Sabbath is creation, and the set-apartness (i.e., holiness) of the seventh day, which is more a priestly concern that develops post-exile.

In fact, Exodus 19:20 through 20:17 looks like a late insertion. There are numerous pieces of literary evidence to support this (which we don't have time right now to explore more fully). What it means is that the original narrative of God’s theophany at a mountain (unnamed originally, but probably Horeb) to Israel and the giving of the Covenant does not include the Decalogue. The Decalogue was a separate tradition that merged with the earlier theophany tradition to form what we now have as a single Sinai narrative.

The laws found in the Torah reflect too, many of the law codes that existed in other societies around Israel. The progress of the laws found in Torah is summarized by Levine.

“The abolition of social classes, this equal treatment of people from different classes, perhaps based in the biblical notion that all are created in God’s image (so Gen 1), is a parade example of how the Bible improves upon the legal system it inherited.” (Levine, 2020, p. 208)

In other words, other law codes at the time privileged those with power and means, but the unique feature of the Torah is that all are equal under God.

But what about when Jesus comes on the scene, and the apostles inaugurate the Christian community? Levine offers the following,

“When we put Jesus into his Jewish tradition, we see that both concerns, justice and mercy, remain. Great care must be taken in using the Bible as a precedent for judicial issues—especially when the biblical materials are not as clear as we may think.” (Levine, 2020, p. 217)

And Dozeman writes,

“An interpretation of law as a dynamic resource for change and spiritual contemplation is less common among Christian interpreters, who selectively read NT literature that views law negatively as a system of religious legalism resistant to change and antithetical to the mystical experience of God…

[But] Law is also a resource for change in the NT. Jesus states in the Gospel of Matthew that teachers of the law trained in the kingdom of heaven bring forth old and new treasures (Matt 13:52). Recent scholarship has reinforced the dynamic role of the law in NT literature.” (Dozeman, 2009, p. 723)

Examples of dynamic change in interpretation of the law include Peter and what clean vs. unclean means; Paul and his interpretation of circumcision, his views around food regulations, and his interpretation of what constitutes belonging to Israel. The conflicts between Jesus and the teachers of the law are also examples of how the interpretation of the law was not static but constantly undergoing change.

God is Unchanging?

What all this means is that the laws are not written in stone. If the laws are dynamic and interpretation is contextual, does that mean there is nothing firm and solid?

Both the Old and New Testaments contain texts that state that God does not change (Numbers 23:19; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; et al.) This unchanging nature of God has traditionally been extrapolated, at least within Christian tradition, to include laws that God has given. But we have now seen that the Jews view God-given laws quite a bit differently than the traditional Christian view.

When we investigate the Hebrew scriptures and history, we do find what is considered the unchanging nature of God. It is hesed, often translated as “lovingkindness” or “steadfast love” into English. But those words and phrases do not capture the full essence of what that means. Joshua James in Psalms for Normal People explains,

“There’s a common refrain that occurs throughout Psalms that will help us anchor this theological tenet about God’s past actions informing the people’s present trust. In our English translations, the refrain is typically rendered, ‘for Yahweh’s steadfast love endures forever.’ For many modern readers, however, the point is missed…”

“The Hebrew term rendered ‘steadfast love’ is hesed, and its intended meaning goes well beyond sentimentality. It refers to ‘acts of commitment’ or ‘acts of faithfulness.’ God’s love, in other words, is measured not by what God feels, but by what God has done. In Psalms, hesed is an observable divine activity that consistently works on Israel’s behalf.” (James, 2023, p. 109)

When we read the beginning of the Decalogue, God starts with what God has done in the past for God’s chosen people. That is the basis and foundation for why the law is given. It is the one thing that does not change about God. God’s commitment to God’s people begins even before the people are aware that there is this God. And the history of the Israelites demonstrates God’s commitment even when the people are unfaithful.

How God’s acts of commitment and faithfulness look changes depending on people, society, and history. But God’s commitment to people God chooses does not change.

How people demonstrate faithfulness to God also changes depending on their society and culture, history, and many other human attributes. Each group of God’s people have to determine what that looks like. And that is the reason for God’s law. It is a starting point to begin learning and experimenting with what faithfulness looks like for those people, in that place, and at that time. What is found in God’s instructions to God’s people is to be a people who practice justice and mercy without distinction to all.

Law and the Gospel

When all this is brought together, the gospel lived and proclaimed by Jesus isn’t at all different from the law and covenant given to Israel through theophany from a mountain.

What does becoming a people of justice and mercy look like for us today? In what ways can we meditate on God’s revelation and God’s instructions, both the older and the newer Covenants, so that we can be faithful and committed to God’s purposes for us?


__________________

References

Dozeman, T. B. (2009). Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Enns, P. (2021). Exodus for Normal People. Perkiomenville, PA: The Bible for Normal People.

James, J. T. (2023). Psalms for Normal People. Harleysville, PA: The Bible for Normal People.

Levine, A.-J. a. (2020). The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently. San Francisco: HarperOne.