Sermon: Who Is Jesus?

Lectionary: Proper 25(A)

Texts: Leviticus 19:1-2, 15-18; Matthew 22:34-46

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?

Re-thinking Jesus' Wilderness Tests

At the beginning of his public ministry, immediately after his baptism, Jesus was driven into the wilderness where he fasted for forty days. At the end of that period he is tested by the tempter/devil/adversary/Satan.

 In the Matthean account (Matthew 4:1-11), the first test is to turn stones into bread. The second test is launch himself off of the top of the temple. The final test is to secure power through acknowledging Satan as the ruler of the world.

Traditional Interpretations

This is a familiar story and I’ve heard numerous sermons and articles based on it, as I’m sure you have. I think that largely due to the individualized nature of Western Christianity prevalent through much of the world, the interpretation sand applications of this story has usually been at the individual level.

One such interpretation and application is that these three tests represent the major categories of temptations that individual Christians face: Just as Jesus was able to overcome, Christians, through faith in Christ, can find victory in all their tests.

Another line of interpretation focuses on Jesus’ use of scripture to counter his adversary in each test. The application is the need for Christians to “feed on God’s word,” a strong allusion to the first test. 

Yet another exposition of this passage takes each one and expands them, possibly into a mini-series of sermons. The first is the temptation of appetite. The second the temptation of presumption. And the third, the temptation of power. Sins associated with each are described and the listeners exhorted to avoid them.

Some Problems

While the individual-focused, traditional interpretations and applications aren’t wrong, and I think can be faithful to the text, I no longer think they are complete or even their original intent.

First, at their most literal sense, these temptations make no sense to anyone who isn’t divine or at least has the ability to call upon miraculous powers on demand. They also defy common sense and logic. For example, no reasonable person, however religious, is going to launch themselves off of the top of a tall building just to see if they will be miraculously saved.

Second, this passage does not appear to be concerned with individual, personal sins. Its concern seems to be with something larger, broader principles, and collectives of beings. Yes, Jesus is an individual, but the passage appears to depict him as representing something larger.

The second points to a third problem that I see. Most of us will never be in a position where the fate of the world is in our hands, or where we are called to prove some kind of anointing to a doubting public. In that sense these tests have no applicability to the majority of us.

A Collective Applicability 

I think that the key to a better understanding of Jesus’ tests can be found in the texts which he quotes. All three are found in Deuteronomy (chapters 6-8). This section of Deuteronomy is where Moses is found warning ancient Israel, prior to their entry into Canaan, about the consequences of their failure to remain faithful to God, and where Moses gives injunctions on how to conduct their lives in obedience to God.

The key is this: the target of the tests is a collective, a group of people, a nation. Ancient Israel had failed these tests. But Jesus, representing a collective, succeeds.

The question then is this: who or what is the collective that Jesus represents? I think the answer is quite clear. It is the Church.

With that key, the interpretation and applications of the tests change. They are no longer about me individually, but the tests are still applicable to me personally because I am part of the Church. The ramifications of the tests are far greater now, because where as an individual my influence is fairly limited, the influence of the Church is far greater.

With that in mind, here is how I now read and apply the tests of Jesus in the wilderness:

First test: Where will the Church look to secure its relevance and perhaps its very existence?

Second test: Does the Church think it is somehow more privileged than everyone else in the world? That it is exempt from the usual rules and codes of conduct? That somehow God will step in and save it from natural consequences of poor decisions, deliberate or otherwise?

Third test: What foundation will the Church build upon as its basis for power and influence? Who will it partner with in order to seek to extend its domain?

I think this re-imagination and re-thinking of Jesus’ wilderness tests offers critical points to think about as Christians and their churches (aka, The Church) works through issues of relevance and influence in the 21st century.

Book Review: Short Stories by Jesus

Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi by Amy-Jill Levine
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Parables told by Jesus are meant to provoke. In this volume by Amy-Jill Levine, she seeks to reopen the readers' eyes to the provocation they contain.

Christian tradition has too often resorted to allegory (or worse) to read and interpret the parables. In that process the parables have been used to disparage and attack Judaism and Jews. They have been used to claim for Christianity purity and holiness that Judaism supposedly had lost and corrupted. They have been used to drive a wedge between Judaism and Christianity, to paint an us-vs-them picture of what following the God of the Bible means. Levine, writing as a Jew, brings a broad Jewish perspective and corrective to traditional Christian interpretations and suppositions.

On the other hand, perhaps modern Christians shouldn't be judged too harshly for perpetuating traditions. Levine writes that as early as the gospel writers recording the parables, and likely even earlier, the parables had already begun their "domestication" to try to tame their provocative natures and to support an exclusive Christian theology. What cannot be forgiven is that with the amount of scholarship and knowledge available to Christians today, that they continue to perpetuate traditions and interpretations that are questionable and may not have any basis in the original telling.

Levine goes through a selection of parables, one per chapter, first offering a translation of the text that adheres very literally to the Greek. She then addresses the traditional Christian interpretations, and offers critiques and counterpoints. She ends each chapter with a different, and based on her scholarship, what she would say is a more accurate reading and understanding of the parables.

The re-imagining and re-reading of the parables will definitely provoke thought, especially among those of us who grew up understanding the parables in another way, where parables were supposed to provide some kind of model answer to a problem or a picture of the kingdom of God. In Levine's interpretations, the parables are open-ended; they ask troubling questions, and the reader must come up with how to respond to them.

The final chapter is both a summary and an invitation for the reader to continue exploring the parables. She gives brief overviews of another handful of parables and suggests some directions that the reader might take in following the pattern she has provided in her book.

Don't read this book if you don't want your comfortable Christian hermeneutics disturbed. Read it if you are genuinely interested in discovering what the original hearers of the parables likely heard from Jesus.

View all my reviews

A.D. The Bible Continues (TV / NBC)–“The Body Is Gone” (2/12)

Observations

My general impression of this episode is that although artistic and dramatic licenses were taken with the narrative and many details, the overall narrative follows well-enough the key incidents and dialogue that is found in John chapters 20 and 21, and the first part of Acts 1.

My expectations had been raised with the first episode, so my impression of episode 2 is that while decent, I didn’t find much that was particularly noteworthy.

There is a lot more action in this episode than there was in the first. Since there were no cars to do car chases, the next best thing is rooftop chases.

Maybe the part that impressed me the most was the portrayal of Thomas. His “doubting” was quite believable. Anyone in his place would likely have responded in a similar manner.

I re-watched the end of episode one and now see that the heavenly warrior dude is an angel. He shows up again in this episode near the end.

Motifs

1. This episode continues to develop the political conflict between the Jewish priesthood and the Romans. By the end of this episode, any cooperation or trust between them is gone.
2. The issue between followers of Jesus and the Romans continues to be developed primarily as a political issue. The followers are seen as destabilizing Roman rule.
3. Pilate is portrayed as utilitarian and ruthless. Whatever works to keep his position and Rome in power, he will do.
4. Non-violence from episode one gets a brief mention, but I think it is a powerful scene. Peter is once more offered the choice between what seems like pragmatism and idealism. Peter is shown a stash of daggers, but he refuses the kind of help that will require killing to accomplish.
5. The coming together of the disciples. As long as Jesus was absent, the disciples were scattered in thinking, beliefs, and action. As reports of Jesus’ return begin to filter in, they begin to come together and work together. By the end they are once more walking together, in unison.
6. It’s all about whether the body of Jesus can be found or not. For the writers and producers, I sense that this is a central pillar of Christianity on whether or not it stands.

Quibbles

A week doesn’t pass between Jesus’ first appearance to the disciples-minus-Thomas and his appearance to Thomas. I can see how the dramatization might want to compress time, but still…

While the first episode presented some strong actions from women (and in the case of Leah, perhaps over-the-top) this episode doesn’t really show much strength and initiative from the women. Even Leah is somewhat subdued. The most problematic is the complete omission of Mary Magdalene as the first witness to the living Jesus and his commissioning of her to tell the news to all the other disciples. I am sorely disappointed in this huge omission.

Would the Romans really have bothered to try to round up the disciples? The gospel accounts and the book of Acts doesn’t mention early friction between the Romans and the disciples – between the Jewish leaders and disciples, yes. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened, but I get the feeling it’s there for the dramatized action. This also leads to Zealots throwing the 1st century equivalent of Molotov Cocktails at the Romans blocking the city gate. That there were no immediate repercussions for this action went beyond suspension of disbelief into the realm of la-la land. This was the most difficult-to-accept part of the episode.

The ascension scene was rather hokey and not much like the description in Acts. I mean, we saw a “comet” with an angel coming down in episode one, so why couldn’t Jesus have lifted away into a cloud? And finally, where were the two beings that explain to the disciples what happened. Maybe these details are going to be found in episode three…

And an unquibble

At first I thought how the temple and the Roman guards at the tomb were depicted as very separate was odd. The temple guards were paid off, and the Roman guards were handled the way they would have been if they abandoned their posts. The text of Matthew 28 reveals that it was “some of the guard” that is involved, and although they are paid off, nothing about their ultimate fates is recorded. So with artistic and dramatic license, what is found in this episode is a plausible interpretation.

Synopsis

Jerusalem, the Third Day. Leah and Caiaphas. Temple guards report disappearance of Jesus' body via an angel who rolled away the stone.

Mary Magdalene arrives at tomb. Startled to see it open and empty. Runs away.

Back to Caiaphas and Leah. Plot an explanation. Gives money to the guards to tell a fabricated version about the body being stolen. Caiaphas and Leah believe the disciples really did stole the body. Afraid that Pilate will discover the truth. Commands temple guards to find Jesus' body so it can be shown he is still dead.

To Pilate and Claudia. Leaving Jerusalem. Claudia is sure Jesus' execution bodes ill omens.

Mary returns to tell the disciples about the empty tomb.

Caiaphas comes to meet Pilate. Pilate asks if Jesus is still dead. Caiaphas assures Pilate this is so. Caiaphas thanks Pilate for his support for supporting their requests about Jesus. Pilate states that when faced with having to stand firm or be fair, he will always stand firm.

Pilate's guards return to speak about what happened at the tomb.

Temple guard hands someone money to find a corpse.

Pilate enters Caiaphas' bathroom while he is taking a bath, and demands an explanation about what really happened to Jesus' body. Pilate is afraid that the Jesus movement will grow beyond control and threaten Roman authority.

Mary, Peter, and John return to the tomb to confirm Mary's report. Peter and John enter. Wonders who would have taken the body. John wonders why whoever took the body would fold the burial cloth. John states it is the third day. John believes. Mary remains at the tomb. She enters to examine the cloth, cradles it, and cries. Jesus appears and asks "why are you crying?" Mary asks the voice if he has taken the body and where it has gone. "Mary." She recognizes the voice, recognizes Jesus.

Back to Jerusalem. Mary runs through an alley. John reports what he has seen. Other disciples are afraid the officials might think they have stolen the body and come after them. John tries to explain the prophecies of Isaiah that applies to Jesus. Roman soldiers approach. Mary arrives and reports she has seen Jesus and has spoken to her. Mary, the mother, is on the rooftop. Mary Magdalene goes up to report to her that Jesus is alive. The disciples wonder if it could be true. Peter's guilt and shame continue to haunt him.

Jesus appears among them. "Peace be with you... Is there any food?" Jesus reminds them how prophecies had to be fulfilled. Knock at the door. Thomas arrives. Jesus is gone. The others tell Thomas about Jesus' presence. Thomas doesn't believe their report. Accuses the others of trying to play him for a fool. Mary tells Thomas to go to the tomb and see for himself. "Lest I put my finger..." etc.

Roman soldiers. Pilate goes to the remaining guards who are beat upon by other soldiers. The one guard who came to Pilate to report what happened is spared.

Temple guard has come up with a body with all the necessary marks of crucifixion and the piercing of the side. Caiaphas sees but realizes this is not Jesus' body. Guard explains that if Caiaphas declares this to be Jesus' body, people will accept it as such, and if it is far enough off the ground, people will fail to see the deception. Caiaphas doesn't think it will work and commands the body to be taken away.

Thomas returns from the tomb with a report that the temple guards are resealing the tomb to make it appear that the body is still inside. Thomas still feels left out and refuses to believe. Jesus appears behind Thomas and allows examination of the wounds. "My Lord." "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." Jesus disappears.

Romans break down the door to the room where the disciples were staying. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother are inside. The disciples flee, Romans in pursuit. Chase over rooftops and alleys. They run inside a building, and when the Romans come through, they are attacked.

Mary and Mary are apprehended by the Romans, and demand to know to where the disciples have fled. They ask where Jesus' body went. Centurion commands his men to lock down the city.

Peter is assisted by Boaz and led to a safe room. Boaz offers his help. Scene cuts to a stash of knives and daggers. Peter refuses this kind of help involving killing. Boaz defends himself and says they only take lives as a last resort, unlike the Romans.

Annas is upset with Caiaphas for his close association with Pilate in regards to Jesus' execution. Annas rebukes Caiaphas. Leah (daughter of Annas, wife of Caiaphas) sides with Caiaphas. Joseph of Arimathea bursts into the room and demands an explanation as to why his tomb was desecrated. Joseph accuses Caiaphas of making matters worse, and that it will come back to bite him. Annas demands that any attempt at trying to apply Isaiah's prophecy to Jesus must be quashed, so that it doesn't come to destroy the priesthood.

Jerusalem gate. Romans preventing exit of city. Disciples want to get out. Zealots have prepared bombs against the Romans to clear the blockade. People run out.

Pilate wants to know (from centurion) why they have not yet apprehended the disciples. Centurion tells Pilate that the disciples did not escape with the corpse. Pilate wants to know if the body is at their hideout, then. Centurion says it was not there either.  Pilate hates Jerusalem. He cannot handle how the Jewish people seem to take every unexplainable phenomenon as a sign and a portent. He thinks this is affecting Claudia. Pilate will do whatever it takes to bring to end the mess with the Jesus incident.

Scene switches to Galilee. Lake Gennesaret. Fishing boat. Disciples on boat, fishing, but not catching anything. It is way past dawn. Pulling in the nets one more time. Nothing. From the shore, "How's the catch? ... Cast them on the right hand side." They do so. They catch some fish. John recognizes Jesus. Peter, too. Peter jumps in and begins swimming toward Jesus. A fire is burning. Jesus and Peter embrace.

Jerusalem. (This scene is confusing. Not sure if this description is accurate or not.) It looks like a temple guard is following an old man. A disguised Roman is following the guard. The old man is strangled to death by the temple guard. The Roman knocks out the guard, then slits his throat, leaving the body lying in the alley. (After seeing through to the end of this episode, it is under Pilate’s orders that all the temple guards that have been paid off by Caiaphas are being killed.)

Back to Galilee. Dialogue between Jesus and Peter. "Peter do you love me...?" Three times.

Leah approaches Caiaphas. He is annoyed that Annas is trying to control him. He thinks that Leah sometimes does that, too. Caiaphas is assured he has both of their support. Temple guard arrives to report that two of the guards in charge of the tomb have been discovered murdered, and the rest have disappeared. Pilate demands Caiaphas' to come see him.

Back to Galilee. Jesus and disciples in circle. Jesus explains prophecies. Jesus promises the Holy Spirit. He commands Peter to return to Jerusalem and wait for the promise. Jesus foretells Peter's martyrdom. Jesus asks if Peter is ready to do that. Peter responds in the affirmative.

They walk together. The commissioning from Acts 1. Dramatic sky. Disciples look on as Jesus is taken. Dramatic lighting effects. Jesus climbs a mountain where the angel from the resurrection scene is present at the top.

Pilate. "This will soon be over." Caiaphas appears. Pilate orders the Roman guards who abandoned their posts to be brought in. They are strangled to death. The one guard who came to Pilate to tell his story is killed by Pilate. The prophecy of the Nazarene appears to lie dead on the floor.

End, episode 2.

A.D. The Bible Continues (TV - NBC) - "The Tomb Is Open" (1/12)

Observations

I came to this with VERY low expectations. So anything other than a complete and utter catastrophe (e.g., “The Bible” miniseries) would rate fairly decently. And it turns out that, at least this first episode, wasn’t that bad. It was quite watchable for the most part. It takes dramatic and narrative liberties, yet much of it remains within the realm of plausibility.

If this first episode is an indication of the approach to the entire series, I think it is quite viewable (without all the cringing and grinding of teeth that often accompany “Bible” dramas).

Motifs

I came away with three major motifs that I felt this episode wanted to establish for its audience:

1. That Jesus really, really, really died.
2. That Jesus’ crucifixion was a result of a confluence of many complicated political and religious factors, and that early Christians will continue to face issues in this realm.
3. The role of women in ancient society.

Jesus Really, Really Died

In regards to the first point, the dramatizations of the brutality of the crucifixion, the Romans coming to break the crucifieds’ legs, the spear thrust, the burial witnessed by multiple individuals, (I think it was) Caiaphas examining the cross, Cornelius (the Centurion) confirming Jesus’ death in front of Pilate and Caiaphas, are all designed to show dramatically that there is no way Jesus could have been merely unconscious.

Politics and Religion Cause Jesus’ Death

Caiaphas’ and Leah’s (his wife) primary motivation as dramatized is to preserve the Temple and its systems. They see nothing wrong with the sacrificial rituals, and the pilgrims who come to offer them. Their concern is to preserve the traditions and peace with Rome. They see Jesus’ teachings as challenging the very foundations of their society and culture, and by extension, a challenge to Rome. Thus Jesus is not merely a troubler of their religion and way of life, but an insurrectionist. Caiaphas will stop at nothing to do what he believes is right, even if that means bringing in Rome. There are hints that this will eventually cause the Jewish nation problems.

As a foil to Caiaphas and Leah, Joseph of Arimathea is presented as a high-ranking priest, perhaps in line to become High Priest someday. But his actions in regards to Jesus will become a problem if greater priestly authority is the subject. Joseph questions Caiaphas’ actions and Leah’s approval of Jesus’ execution. Joseph questions whether Jesus really was that dangerous as Caiaphas believes him to be. Thus two powerful members of the priestly family are shown to be coming to odds.

Pilate and his wife, Claudia, are the other party. Pilate represents the political and military might of Rome. His main concern is to maintain the peace at all costs. He intentionally (but quietly) pits Caiaphas and Joseph against one another because infighting among the Jews means less of them fighting the Romans. He does not want to involve himself with Jewish squabbles and intervenes only when his position is threatened.

The dream Claudia had about Jesus defines who she is. She believes there is far more to Jesus than Pilate thinks there is. She is shown as one who is spiritual, who believes in omens from dreams. Pilate, on the other hand, is strictly pragmatic.

The Role of Women

Women take a prominent place in the first episode. Mary, Jesus’ mother, is the only one who continues to believe in Jesus and comes out scolding the disciples for their lack of faith. Leah, Caiaphas’ wife, is outspoken about her opinions about Jesus and the right-ness of how Jesus was handled. Claudia directly challenges her husband, Pilate, until he threatens her with his right and authority as political ruler and husband. Mary Magdalene seems to almost believe Mary, the mother’s, belief that Jesus will rise again. She confronts Peter about his denial. Taken as a whole, the women, on whichever “side” they place themselves, are strong-willed and confident; they know what they believe.

Nonviolence

I don’t think this was presented as a major motif (but it could become one later). But I mention it because it was intentionally developed. When Peter is invited by his Zealot acquaintance, Boaz, to join him, Peter refuses because, in spite of Jesus’ death, Peter still believes in the nonviolent way of love that Jesus taught. Boaz proclaims freedom; Jesus taught love. Peter chooses love. Peter has realized that the way of the sword only leads to death. Does love lead to life? He’s uncertain, but that is what he will put his faith in.

Quibbles

My major quibble is with Mary, Jesus’ mother, fully confident that Jesus will rise in three days. It makes for interesting interpersonal drama, but I don’t see where this is supported in scripture.

My next major quibble is why nearly all modern dramatizations of Jesus’ crucifixion have to concentrate so much on its brutality? The gospels don’t really put down a whole lot of ink. Granted the original audience knew all too well what crucifixion involved, and perhaps we need images to show what happened. On the other hand, maybe the gospels weren’t so concerned with the process of crucifixion and more with that mere fact that it happened and Jesus died.

Next, the resurrection where Jesus (Or was this the angel that came down in what looked like a comet? I’m still a bit confused here. I think the rest still applies.) seems to be shown as a conquering warrior with a drawn sword. I understand how imagery from particularly Revelation contributes to this, but it seems to run counter to the message of nonviolence.

And were wives and women that outspoken? This may be the correct trajectory of the gospel, but seems like an anachronistic portrayal.

Finally, why do so many of the disciples (and other Jewish men) look like hippies?

Synopsis

This was typed while watching, so I’m sure there are mistakes and omissions.

Opens with Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin. Charge of blasphemy. Transfer to Pilate. Pilate tries to dismiss charges. Gives in to Jewish religious leaders' demands. Sentences Jesus to crucifixion. Peter is in the crowd. Golgotha - crucifixion. Graphic pounding of spikes - three of them. Women near the cross. Raising and dropping of cross.

Temple scene - blood being poured out onto an wall. Passover. Jerusalem. Priests (incl. Joseph, Annas, Caiaphas) - discuss the need to maintain sacrificial system. Jesus was a direct challenge to the system. Discussion includes the high priest's wife (Leah). Assembly line sacrificial scene at the temple with pilgrims.

 

Back to Jesus on the cross. "My God, My God. Why have you forsaken me?"

 

To Pilate. Request to expedite the death of Jesus. A request by Joseph of Arimathea to take the body. Pilate orders Cornelius to finish Jesus off. He grants Joseph's request. Justification: as long as the Jews are fighting amongst themselves, they won't become a serious threat. Pilate's wife, Claudia. Speaks of her dream. Pilate dismisses her dream - can't govern based on a woman's dreams. Pilate tries to justify his decision by claiming that Jesus was a threat to Rome. Claudia states that killing Jesus won't be the end of him.

 

Back to the cross. "It is finished." Jesus dies. Mourning by some of the bystanders. Peter way of in the distance looking toward the hill. Darkness over the land, storm, and earthquake. Chaos. Tearing of the temple veil.

 

Jerusalem, then cross. Mourning women. Detachments of soldiers to break legs. Mary (mother) implores the soldier to not break Jesus' leg. Spear thrust. Joseph arrives to claim the body and offer a tomb.

 

Judas hangs himself. Interspersed with returning blood money and Jesus' burial. Closing of the tomb. Peter still looking from a long distance away. Mary and John return to a room and joined by Mary Magdalene. Mary Magdalene thinks Mary (mother) believes Jesus will rise from the dead.

 

Caiaphas residence. Children and wife. Joseph arrives. Joseph doesn't believe Jesus posed a threat. Caiaphas' wife believes Jesus was a threat. Joseph reveals that his tomb holds Jesus. Caiaphas refers to Isaiah's prophecy, alarmed at its implications. Argument between them. Caiaphas is sure Jesus' teachings will not survive.

 

Peter comes to John. The other disciples are not around. Mary Magdalene confronts Peter about his whereabouts during the ordeal. Peter asks if Jesus is dead. John confirms. Peter is resigned to all this being over. Mary Magdalene speaks of various foretellings of Jesus: Judas' betrayal, Peter's denial. She asks if Peter did or did not deny Jesus. Peter admits failure. Mary Magdalene repeats Mary's (mother) belief that Jesus will rise.

 

Jerusalem, next day. A Zealot (Boaz) draws a dagger and eyes Romans trying to provoke confrontation. Soldiers are distracted and walks away.

 

Caiaphas returns to Pilate. Pilate denies any hidden intent of causing friction amongst the Jews by allowing Jesus to be buried in the tomb of a prominent elder. Caiaphas claims prophecies to state that his followers will attempt to steal the body to claim a resurrection. He demands Roman guards for the tomb. Pilate wonders why this "nobody", a single individual is so much trouble for the Jews. He sends a detachment to keep the peace.

 

Back to Jerusalem. A couple of disciples of Jesus return to Jerusalem, are recognized by the Romans, and run. They are taken by a couple of Zealots (incl. Boaz) and explain who they are.

 

Back at the cross. Caiaphas(?) examines the cross and says, "He bled like a man." As he leaves, says to the Romans to remove the cross and break it up.

 

Peter and Boaz are old acquaintances. Boaz wants Peter and the rest to join the Zealots. Jesus preached love; the Zealots preach freedom. Boaz claims the Romans will come after each of them, one by one. Peter cannot join the Zealots or employ their means.

 

Pilate and his wife. Pilate is annoyed by Claudia's obsession with Jesus. Cornelius arrives and confirms that Jesus was dead. (Lots of dialogue in this and earlier scenes about confirmation of Jesus' death.) Pilate threatens Claudia to never again speak of Jesus or of dreams about him.

 

The disciples debate leaving Jerusalem. Some think they are being targeted. Others don't think they matter anymore and are being ignored. Mary (mother) enters to remind them of Jesus' prophecy that he will rise again. Duty to family is that they save their lives. Peter convinces them to wait three days.

 

Back to Caiaphas. A messenger arrives with news of Judas Iscariot. Caiaphas thinks (not yet hearing the Judas is dead) wants to use Judas to go after the other disciples. Now gets news that Judas has killed himself.

 

The tomb. Roman detachment of soldiers. Before dawn. Jerusalem. Disciples. John describes the trial, torture, and crucifixion to the other disciples. Caiaphas and wife - she commends him for his political savvy in maintaining peace, for using Pilate to achieve his ends. Flashback to trial. Pilate - flashback to "What is truth?" Peter - flashback to denial.

 

Earthquake. Tomb. An angel (comet-like) descends from the heavens to a sealed tomb that is starting to glow. Stone is rolled away. Jesus (or an angel, I lost track) is portrayed as a sword-wielding conqueror. The soldiers look away. Soldiers come to Caiaphas to report the event. Jesus is gone.

 

End of episode 1.

Finding Jesus (TV) – Relics of John the Baptist (ep. 2/6)

Prophets were common in first century Judaism. John the Baptist is the kind of fire-brand, judgment-preaching prophet in the pattern of Old Testament prophets that would have aroused the curiosity and appeal of the people of his time. And in many ways he might be the kind of preacher that some segments of Christianity today might also revere. During his life, John was probably far more popular and recognized than Jesus. But he didn't seek the limelight; he went to the margins and spoke from there.

 

Not too many years into the beginnings of Christianity, the remains of John the Baptist were believed to have spread around the region. People wanted tangible connections to their origins, and these bone fragments were one such means. There are far too many such reports for most of them to be possibly genuine. But what we can learn from them is the story of the spread of Christianity.

 

One such relic was discovered in Bulgaria underneath a church dedicated to John the Baptist. Upon testing the remains, it was discovered that it did indeed come from a Middle Eastern man dated to the first part of the first century. If genuine, it could be a biological connection to Jesus. (Cue scenes and readings from Luke.)

 

Science can determine whether any of the scattered relics of John the Baptist are from a single individual.

 

Historical interpretation shows that Jesus came to John, and that Jesus' ministry began within John's framework. There is no evidence for or against that John and Jesus met previous to his baptism. (Cue scenes and readings of baptism from the gospels.) How can the baptized become greater than the baptizer? This is one of the major issues for which the gospels attempt to provide an answer. Eventually Jesus goes off on his own and it is his ministry that survives.

 

Jesus and the wilderness temptation. (Cue scenes and readings of the temptations.) The program uses the order from Luke. The interviewee for this segment provides some personal speculations that seems irrelevant.

 

The program interprets Jesus' baptism as giving John the Baptist new courage to speak out against sin, specifically against Herod Antipas. Explanation given of why Herod's relationship with Herodias was particularly offensive to the Jews. John's actions are seen as political sedition and treason, eventually leading to his arrest, imprisonment, and execution.

 

Imprisonment does not silence John. But now he has time to really ponder Jesus and his movement. If Jesus is on the trajectory that John prophesied about the Messiah, then John's work has not been in vain. Jesus' response gives hope to John – oppression will be overcome.

 

The problem between John and Herod/Herodias is that of honor. John has shamed them. And Herodias in particular has a score to settle, to regain her honor. (Cue "death banquet" scene and reading from Mark.) John the Baptist's execution stands as a warning to all who would dare confront the established powers of the world.

 

The finger kept in Kansas City, MO does not date to the first century. It is much younger. There are over 200 known relics of John. Perhaps matches will be found as they continue to be tested.

 

John the Baptist is a prototype for Jesus' ministry: a catalyst for change, calls for repentance, confronting the established powers, martyrdom. A key difference: Jesus movement intentionally appeals to Gentiles, thereby allowing it to survive and continue.

 

Dramatized interpretations from the Bible are intertwined with modern settings of the search and testing of relics.

 

This episode had much less to do with looking at the relics and far more with understanding the person of John and how Jesus might have been influenced by him. It used quite a number of passages from the Bible and included extensive dramatizations of the stories. As with any interpretations of scripture, there are opinions that not all may share. Overall, however, I thought the program remained historically and scripturally sound.

Sermon: Walking Together In the Storm

Thesis: Christ’s authority guarantees that he will provide the strength to bring to completion all that he commands his disciples.

Lectionary: Year A, Proper 14
Gospel Text: Matthew 14:22-33 (ESV)
Sermon Audio: 30 minutes

The original plan was for Pastor Bob to be away on his annual summer solo kayak trip today. I had agreed some time ago to preach for him at the Presbyterian Church today.

But due to rain and winds, the better part of prudence cut his trip short and brought him back into town last night. However, a kayak trip and a few hours afterwards aren’t necessarily best preparation for a sermon so he was grateful to be able to sit with his wife in the pew this morning during the sermon while I spoke.

The overall worship preceding the sermon contained much thematic material about boats, sea, and storms and it was a perfect introduction to what I had selected for today.

As far as the sermon, it focused on how this passage can be seen as a metaphor of the Kingdom of Heaven – it is here already, but not yet in its fullness.

A brief synopsis

The gospel tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven has come, at least in part. But when we take a look at the world, the news headlines, our personal lives, our churches, the state of Christianity, we wonder where that kingdom is. Religion seems so often to be a divider. Is there any value to religion? It is sometimes tempting to abandon it and find something else. What does today’s story have to offer as we struggle with the “already” but “not yet”?

While in the present, partial kingdom disciples receive commands from Christ. In this story they receive the command to take the boat to the other shore. They are physically separated from him, and “demons” may try to take advantage of that to hinder and prevent the disciples from carrying out Christ’s commands. But Christ does not leave his people alone to fight the battles by themselves. He comes, sometimes in rather unexpected ways, to renew courage and strength. Some may ask for and receive commands to “walk on the water” in ways that others don’t, and the sight of “demons” may raise fear. But the cry for salvation is always answered. Together, hand in hand with Jesus, disciples are able to walk in the storm. When Christ and his people are finally united, the kingdom arrives in its fullness, the demonic winds are ceased forevermore and “the other shore” is reached. What Christ has commanded, he has provided all that is needed to fulfill. Not only that but he has demonstrated his complete authority over forces that arise to oppose the fulfillment of his commands.

Christians today need to remember that Jesus walked with Peter in the storm. The storm didn’t calm immediately. But the presence of Jesus was enough to renew courage and faith in Peter. Part of the Christian commission, a command, from Jesus to his disciples is in turn to make more disciples (c.f., Matthew 28:18-20) in the same way Jesus did. A way for Christians to do that is to use the example given by Jesus in today’s story: go to where the storms of lives are and offer helping hands, strength, courage, and faith; and walk with those who are struggling in their trials.