Sermon: To Be Human

Heart of the World

Lectionary: Year B, Proper 17

Text: Song of Solomon 2:8-13

Introduction

If your experience is anything like mine, your recollection might be quite hazy (if there is if any at all) of the last time you heard a sermon on text from the Song of Solomon. It’s not too difficult to put together sermons on stories and parables. Sermons on clearly didactic texts are usually quite straightforward.

But wisdom literature? Because that’s what the Song is. And within the genre of wisdom literature, the Song is all poetry. Poetry that doesn’t contain any kind of explicit instruction. The book of Proverbs contains plenty of instruction. Even many of the poetry in Psalms has theological direction that can be discerned.

But the Song? Like the book of Esther, there is no mention of God. There is no theological direction to the poetry. Yes, both Jews and Christians have interpreted the Song as allegory. For the Jews, it can be interpreted as God’s relationship with Israel. For Christians who have built upon the Jewish allegorical foundation, the Song is an allegory of Christ and Christ’s bride, the Church.

Other interpreters approach it historically and suggest that the Song is describing King Solomon’s relationship with one of his wives, perhaps his first or the one he actually loved; rather than most of harem which were mostly motivated to seal alliances and political objectives. However, there is only weak circumstantial evidence to support the assertion that the Song relates to Solomon.

But these are later interpretations. Some scholars suggest that the allegorical interpretations were developed to justify the inclusion of the Song in the biblical canon.

Because at the core, the Song is a description of human love. Modern scholars are generally of the opinion that due to similarities with other such poetry of the time, the Song originated as a piece of secular romantic poetry that somehow (perhaps due to a wealthy patron) was included in scripture.

Now, what do we do with this information?

Opinions About Inspiration

One of the first things that comes to mind is the question on the nature of inspiration and inspired writings.

There is a spectrum of how Christians think divine inspiration worked and works as it pertains to scripture. Here is how I think about scripture and its relation to divine inspiration.

At one end, there are those that believe that every word (at least in its original composition) was inspired by God. Moving along the spectrum, there are those who don’t believe in the literal, verbal inspiration of scripture, but believe that every individual who wrote the text was inspired by God. This is sometimes referred to as “thought inspiration.” Moving further along the spectrum, there are those who believe that even if the texts themselves aren’t the result of close divine revelation, the process of editing and collecting the writings to form the canon(s) we have today was inspired by God. At the end of the spectrum, are those who value scripture as inspired, but the inspiration is not inherent in the text but rather, inspiration is received as individuals and communities read the text together and seek divine guidance to understand what it might mean in the present moment.

In my own experience, there was a shift in how I understood the nature of scripture and inspiration. In the belief system that I grew up in, we never accepted literal, verbal inspiration and inerrancy of scripture. I grew up where we believed that all the authors were inspired.

But as I learned and understood more about how the text of the Bible came to be, how they were edited and compiled, how nearly every book of the Bible has authorial or redactor agendas, it became increasingly difficult to accept overall divine inspiration in the writing of the text.

While I can accept that there might be inspiration at work in the writing of small sections, I no longer hold to the idea that there is any kind of inherent inspiration found in the actual text of scripture.

In case you have never heard it before, there is what is sometimes referred to as a high view vs. a low view of scripture. The so-called “high view” asserts that the text itself is inspired. What is intended as the pejorative “low-view” is a rejection of the high-view.

Anyway, if a person doesn’t accept that the words of scripture are inherently inspired, what value does scripture have? And here is where I think that the inclusion of the Song in the Bible offers us an alternative response.

Humanity and Shared Experience

I noted earlier that the current scholarly opinion is that the Song was most likely originated as an anonymous secular love poetry. We might think that this is just an anomaly, but there are other textual pieces found in the Hebrew scriptures which are also seen as originating in texts of other people around them. Even when we venture into the New Testament, we find examples where the text quotes verbatim from Greek and Roman texts, or the texts contain allusions to Greek and Roman philosophical thought.

The incorporation of secular texts and thoughts in scripture does not invalidate its usefulness or devalue it. On the contrary, I think that it allows scripture to be more relatable and as a consequence, more useful and valuable. Scripture offers us, readers that are removed from the text by thousand of miles and thousands of years, a window into peoples who had vastly different experiences in some ways, yet struggled with the same big questions that we still ask: What is the meaning of life? Is there an ultimate power, and if so, what is this power like? Why is there good and evil? What happens after we die? And so on.

Scripture is the record of people wrestling with these metaphysical questions. The answers that people find are rooted in their time and place. Some of the big brushstrokes may hold true over time and space, but we should be careful in how we take and interpret specific responses. All interpretations have a context, and that context includes history and culture.

The value of scripture is that it helps us understand that we, as humans, have always wrestled with similar questions. It also helps us see that the responses to those questions have been developed in community. Scripture is not a lone-wolf exercise, either in its formation or in its interpretation. Scripture has value because it forms a foundation and a starting point for community discussion and debate into the questions and nature of ultimate things.

Just as sermons today might bring in quotes from books and movies, talk about popular music and artists, and how they are part of our experience and how they might help explain to us and to help us experience a touch of what we think upon as ultimate reality. Ancient authors, editors, and audience did the same sort of thing with the materials they had on hand.

To Be Fully Human

The Song touches on the meaning and experience of human love. The experience, the passion, the playfulness, the mystery, and the discovery found in romantic and erotic love between two humans is nearly entirely absent from the Bible, except in the Song. There were enough individuals in ancient history that found value in the Song to preserve it through inclusion in the canon. Romantic love, eros and sexual intimacy were seen as part of what makes humans human, to make sure it was part of the sacred collection of texts.

Once we accept the goodness of romance and passion in our human relationships, we can ask what that means about God who placed those things in us and called them “good.” We can begin to explore how the scripture texts describing God as a lover might mean. We might gain better sense into how much passion God feels toward creation. When we speak of Jesus as God become fully human, we cannot exclude portions of the human experience simply because they are theologically inconvenient or uncomfortable. God sees humanity to be so full of wonder and value that God became one of us. We must never devalue ourselves or anyone else.

Finally, we should not reject allegorical interpretations either. They shouldn’t be asserted as the only “correct” interpretation, but neither should be rejected. It was in community that allegorical interpretations were formed and they form a part of our shared history.

Let me conclude by reading the rest of chapter 2 of the Song. Here the woman continues to quote her lover, before resuming first-person voice in the final two verses.

¹⁴ My dove—in the rock crevices,
hidden in the cliff face—
let me catch sight of you;
let me hear your voice!
The sound of your voice is sweet,
and the sight of you is lovely.”
¹⁵ Catch foxes for us—
those little foxes
that spoil vineyards,
now that our vineyards are in bloom!
¹⁶ I belong to my lover and he belongs to me—
the one grazing among the lilies.
¹⁷ Before the day breeze blows
and the shadows flee,
turn about, my love; be like a gazelle
or a young stag
upon the jagged mountains. (Song of Songs 2:14-17 CEB)

A celebration of human love and what it means to be human. That is the Song.

In the name of God who composed the Song,

In the name of God who sang the Song,

And in the name of God who accompanies our Singing…

References

Bartlett, D. L., & Taylor, B. B. (2008). Feasting on the Word: Year B, Volume 4 (Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

McDaniel, S. (2017, Marh 9). Greek Writers Quoted in the New Testament. Retrieved from Tales of Times Forgotten: Making the Distant Past Relevant to the Present Day: https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2017/03/09/greek-writers-quoted-in-the-new-testament/

 

 

"Can Anything from ___ be Good?"

Lectionary: Epiphany 2(B)

Text: John 1:35-51 (extended reading)

Introduction

Last Sunday we celebrated the Baptism of Jesus. Today’s gospel reading follows that. In the Synoptic gospels, Jesus faces the wilderness temptation immediately afterward. But gospel account of John is quite different from the other three in that the baptism of Jesus is only tangentially alluded to[1], the temptation account doesn’t exist, and Jesus seems to hang around the Jordan River with John the Baptist for at least a day or so.

The narrative around the initial gathering of Jesus’ disciples is also different between the Synoptics and the gospel account in John. In the Synoptics, Jesus seems to show up to where the disciples are and calls them to leave behind their former lives and occupations and follow him. In John’s gospel, it starts out with disciples of John, who have already committed to following a master, who then seek out Jesus.

Witnesses

Let’s pick up the gospel text by starting just before where the reading started and continuing into the first few verses that we already heard,

²⁹ The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! ³⁰ This is the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is really greater than me because he existed before me.’ ³¹ Even I didn’t recognize him, but I came baptizing with water so that he might be made known to Israel.” ³² John testified, “I saw the Spirit coming down from heaven like a dove, and it rested on him. ³³ Even I didn’t recognize him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘The one on whom you see the Spirit coming down and resting is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ ³⁴ I have seen and testified that this one is God’s Son.”

³⁵ The next day John was standing again with two of his disciples. ³⁶ When he saw Jesus walking along he said, “Look! The Lamb of God!” ³⁷ The two disciples heard what he said, and they followed Jesus. (John 1:29-37 CEB)

From this text the implication is that only John saw the Spirit come down and rest on Jesus and who heard a voice explaining the vision. The two disciples of John who follow Jesus have only the words of John to go on. Jesus has not yet said anything, preached anything, performed any signs or wonders, and hadn’t had any notable interactions with anyone. There is no tangible evidence that Jesus is anything more than an ordinary human being. The only thing that the two disciples of John have is their trust in the words of their current master commending Jesus as the one who is greater, and by implication, possibly the Messiah that they are looking for.

A Web of Trust

The next verses read,

³⁸ When Jesus turned and saw them following, he asked, “What are you looking for?” They said, “Rabbi (which is translated Teacher), where are you staying?” ³⁹ He replied, “Come and see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon. (John 1:38-39 CEB)

These few verses capture the essence of many thematic materials elaborated upon in the remainder of the gospel. The first of these is the motif of seeking. Throughout the gospel, the question of seeking for Jesus repeatedly appears. The second is the motif of staying. It is also translated into English as “to abide” and “to remain”. Its first occurrence is found in the description of the Holy Spirit resting on Jesus (v. 32). Its most well-known use is probably the parable of the vine and the branches in chapter 15. The third motif is found in Jesus’ response to these potential disciples, “Come and see.” We will see Philip use this exact same phrase, and just a few stories later the Samaritan woman says the same phrase to bring the rest of the town to Jesus.

From here one of the two, identified as Andrew, goes to find his brother Simon Peter. He tells Peter, “We have found the Messiah,” and brings Peter to Jesus. Once again I want to note that there is no record Jesus saying or doing anything noteworthy during the time spent with Andrew and the other disciple. From that I think we are to understand that the mere presence of being in (or staying in) Jesus’ presence was something unusual and different, and that was enough to convince the two that Jesus was the Messiah.

Then Jesus goes to Galilee and the now three disciples follow. The group encounters Philip, who is already acquainted with Andrew and Peter. When Jesus calls to Philip to “Follow me”, there is already a web of trust and familiarity that exists.

Can Anything Good…?

Philip immediately goes to find Nathanael. The text does not describe any time passing of travel, so it is likely the case that the two are in the same town and know one another well. Philip does not describe Jesus as the Messiah, but as one whom “Moses wrote about in the Law and the Prophets”. And then Philip adds that this person is “Jesus, Joseph’s son, from Nazareth.”

It is at this point that one of the well-known words in the gospel are spoken by Nathanael, “Can anything from Nazareth be good?” or perhaps more familiar to many is how you might have heard from the King James Version, “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?”

Various interpretations have been put forward to explain Nathanael’s response. Among them include suggestions that Nazareth was somehow more decadent and secular than desirable, or perhaps it was more evil and sinful than similar towns in the area. Or perhaps Nathanael was expressing bigotry toward Nazareth that was common in the area.

The best and most probable explanation to my mind can be inferred from the text. Recall that Philip said, “[We have found the one whom] Moses wrote about in the Law and the Prophets: Jesus, Joseph’s son, from Nazareth.” It doesn’t require much to realize that what Philip said simply doesn’t add up. Nowhere did Moses (or any Hebrew writer) write about “Jesus, Joseph’s son.” Nor is Nazareth ever mentioned in the Hebrew scripture. Shouldn’t someone as important as the Messiah come from some place more well known and at least is mentioned in scripture?

Nathanael is expressing an honest skepticism and asking a genuine question about Philip’s statement. Philip does not try to defend his statement or argue with Nathanael. He imitates Jesus and says to Nathanael, “Come and see.” Nathanael trusts Philip sufficiently enough that he follows to examine for himself Philip’s claims.

Honesty

As Jesus sees Nathanael approach, before Nathanael can say anything, Jesus speaks and says, “Here is a genuine Israelite in whom there is no deceit.” What did Jesus mean by this? Of the various explanations offered, there are two that I find most convincing. The first is that Nathanael is honest about his misgivings and doubt, and that he freely expresses his skepticism and questions, but at the same time he is open and willing to pursue new information and evidence that could change his mind.

The second explanation comes in light of Jesus’ final spoken sentence in today’s narrative. It is where Jesus says, “I assure you that you will see heaven open and God’s angels going up to heaven and down to earth on the Human One.” This is an allusion to the dream Jacob had of a ladder extending between earth and heaven, upon which angels were traveling up and down. This was the night after which Jacob fled his home because he had deceived his father to obtain the birthright blessing and was attempting to escape his brother’s wrath.

Jacob would be renamed “Israel” some years later during his return journey and he would become the father of all Israelites. So, Jesus’ statement to Nathanael, “Here is a genuine Israelite in whom there is no deceit,” touches on two key moments in Jacob’s story. In this interpretation, Nathanael may be seen as the prototype for a new kind of Israelite that Jesus is forming.

Witnessing in the Modern World

When Christians talk about effective witnessing and evangelism, what is often discussed are methods, techniques, information and content, and programs. What this opening portion of John’s gospel shows includes pretty much nothing that would be recognizable in modern evangelism.

What I see as the common thread through the first four disciples is trust. There is a thread and a web of trust. Not trust in information, but a trust in relationships. The first two trusted John the Baptizer. Peter trusted Andrew. Philip knew Peter and Andrew. Nathanael trusted Philip enough to at least give Philip’s strange statement a benefit of the doubt and check Jesus out for himself.

What is being increasingly lost in modern society is trust.[2] People do not trust institutions. That includes government and churches and nearly everything else in-between.

The first disciples came to Jesus and decided to join and follow him, not because of great programming, a convincing message, or any message. There was something about Jesus’ mere presence, of being with him, that was different. There was something trustworthy about Jesus.

Conclusion

When so much of society can rightfully ask, “Can anything from Christianity be good?”, perhaps our response shouldn’t be to try to defend Christianity through appeals to the many good things that have been accomplished historically, or to become defensive and say, “Not all Christians”, or to try to attempt to communicate doctrines more powerfully and effectively. Rather, maybe our response should be, “Come and see.” Come and see where trust and trustworthiness are values that are lived out, where honest skepticism and questions are welcomed, where care and concern is offered freely, not as a hook to conversion and membership.

When people see us and experience our presence, may they experience Jesus Christ among us and who is the ladder that connects humanity to divinity.

Bibliography

Bartlett, D. L., & Taylor, B. B. (2008). Feasting on the Word: Year B, Volume 1 (Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Britton-Purdy, J. (2024, January 8). We’ve Been Thinking About America’s Trust Collapse All Wrong. Retrieved from The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/01/trust-democracy-liberal-government/677035/

Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2015). Feasting on the Gospels: John, Volume 1. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Lewis, K. M. (2014). Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries: John. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

 

---

[1] In fact, if John’s account was the only gospel account, it could easily be read that Jesus never underwent baptism. If Jesus was baptized in John’s account, the timeline is rather fuzzy about when it took place.

[2] (Britton-Purdy, 2024)

Sermon: From Scratch

Introduction

“From Scratch.”

When you hear the phrase what does it connote to you? How do you use the phrase?

“Built from scratch.” “Baked from scratch.” “Made from scratch.”

Merriam-Webster offers the following explanations[1]:

To create something from scratch is to make it without any ingredients or materials prepared ahead of time. The scratch in from scratch originally referred to the starting line of a race "scratched" into the ground, from which all runners would be starting without a head start…

In cooking, to make something from scratch means to use only the most basic ingredients, with nothing premade…

Building a structure from scratch means using no prefabricated parts…

To build a business or livelihood from scratch means to start with nothing provided in advance…

In these there is a strong sense of creating something significant out of nothing, or almost nothing. And that is how the biblical Creation account of Genesis chapter 1 has traditionally been viewed.

Genesis 1 Creation Account

We are probably quite familiar with the King James translation of the first two verses of Genesis.

​¹ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ² And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:1-2 KJV)

From these verses it seems quite clear that there was nothing and then God created everything. But this may be yet another case of interpretation influencing translation.

The idea that God created everything from nothing is dated to just a couple of centuries prior to Jesus, during the time of the writings of the Maccabees. The Jewish Christians continued this thought and by the third and fourth centuries after Christ, it was held as orthodox theology.

But as you might have inferred, the text of Genesis predates Maccabees by another couple of centuries, at least, and is based on earlier creation mythologies, stories, and traditions. As recent scholars have studied and learned more about ancient creation stories, Bible translators have incorporated what could be considered a more accurate rendering of the one found in Genesis. The Common English Bible translators render the first two verses in this way:

¹ When God began to create the heavens and the earth—² the earth was without shape or form, it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters (Genesis 1:1-2 CEB)

This more accurately conforms to the Creation mythologies that are found throughout the Ancient Near East. Rather than a total void, there was already something, but what was there was seen as complete chaos. What God does through Creation is bring order out of chaos. That is the story of the Creation account in Genesis 1.

For the ancients, the sea was a place of chaos and where evil dwelt. The instances of Jesus taking control over the waters are significant because they are evidence of a power greater than the greatest chaos that humans know. They are evidence that Jesus is greater than the powers of this world.

This does not mean that God couldn’t have created matter out of nothing, but the Bible is silent on where and how matter and the universe originated. As far as the beginning of this world, something already existed, and God took those raw materials and placed them into proper order to bring about the world that humans know.

When you think about making something “from scratch,” that is what it means. Anything created depends on something that already exists. Even the most creative and original thought depends on and utilizes ideas that already exist. Something new is a result of a reordering of existing materials and ideas.

Baptism of Jesus

Let’s review today’s reading from Mark.

⁴ John the Baptist was in the wilderness calling for people to be baptized to show that they were changing their hearts and lives and wanted God to forgive their sins. ⁵ Everyone in Judea and all the people of Jerusalem went out to the Jordan River and were being baptized by John as they confessed their sins. ⁶ John wore clothes made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist. He ate locusts and wild honey. ⁷ He announced, “One stronger than I am is coming after me. I’m not even worthy to bend over and loosen the strap of his sandals. ⁸ I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

⁹ About that time, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and John baptized him in the Jordan River. ¹⁰ While he was coming up out of the water, Jesus saw heaven splitting open and the Spirit, like a dove, coming down on him. ¹¹ And there was a voice from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I dearly love; in you I find happiness.” (Mark 1:4-11 CEB)

There is much that could be spoken about this selection, but I want to focus on the last few verses which describe Jesus’ baptism. While it may not be immediately obvious, there are images that parallel the Creation account of Genesis.

The first is that of wilderness and water. Both communicate ideas about disorder and chaos. They are where the world is wild and uncivilized, where dangers lurk, and threats abound. Yet that is where Jesus first appears in the Marcan gospel. Even more, the key aspect of this appearance of Jesus is that of coming up from out of the water. Just as the entire world and all of humanity finds emergence in the primordial waters, Jesus is depicted as appearing from out of the water.

The image of heaven splitting comes from a text in Isaiah 64. But it could also allude to the Creation account in Genesis where God separates light from darkness, waters from waters, dry land from the sea, and day from night. The allusion can also be to the momentous occasion at Sinai where God split open the heaven to come down to the mountain to speak with the people, which also occasioned the identification of Israel as God’s chosen. And the prophetic texts of the Hebrew scriptures speak of Israel as God’s son.

The image of the Spirit coming down is like the spirit, breath, or wind that is found at the beginning of the Creation account – an entity that is a participant in the initial creation of this world.

Finally, there is the image of Jesus being proclaimed as God’s son. In our language and interpretation, we most likely see this as singular, i.e., the object of “You are my Son” is specifically and only Jesus. But I mentioned just a few moments ago that Israel (in the collective) was also referred to as God’s son. In Luke’s genealogy he ends the list with “Adam son of God.”[2] While Adam could refer to a single individual, Adam is also often used in the Bible as a representative for all of humanity.

What Might Baptism Mean?

We have all heard the result of baptism referred to as a “new creation” or a “new creature”. What does that mean in light of some of the ideas brought out today?

One point to be made is that baptism is not suddenly creating something that didn’t exist before. Nor does it result in a discontinuous existence that is unrelated to what has already existed. What it is, however, like the Genesis Creation account, a bringing and restoration of order into chaos. And that, I think, is good news. Our lived lives don’t suddenly change after baptism. What came before has value. Our life and experiences prior to baptism are being redeemed and brought into proper order.

We continue to experience the same problems that already exist and are part of our lives. But what we do acquire is the Holy Spirit that moves and empowers us to partner with God in bringing order into the chaos that is human experience. Just as the sea continued to exist after Creation and with it the chaos it represents, there are still storms that exist about us and buffet us. But we can have assurance that the Word and Breath of God continues to restore order where there is chaos. There is a promise that chaos will eventually disappear, but it only comes in the book of Revelation, after all creation is recreated.[3]

A second point made is that God entered the chaos of humanity and made the choice to identify with us. When Jesus underwent the ritual of baptism, it was not because he had any sins to be cleansed from (a point which troubles Matthew and Luke). Rather, it was a deliberate decision to identify and enter fully into human experience, with all of the results of sin cast upon it. The good news here is that God knows and feels our confusions and our hurts, and Jesus offers us life patterns that can help us walk through those times.

A third and final point made is that baptism is not only an individual action, but it is something that is communal. Baptism is not merely about an individual confession of sin and repentance, but an entry into a collective, new community which exists beyond the physical boundaries of space and time. A baptized individual enters the community that is represented by Jesus. The entire community is declared by God, “You are my son, whom I dearly love.” Jesus may have been the individual who heard those words, but he hears it as a representative of the entire community that he began to build and continues to strengthen with each person added to it.

Bibliography

Bartlett, D. L., & Taylor, B. B. (2008). Feasting on the Word: Year B, Volume 1 (Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Enns, P., & Byas, J. (2019). Genesis for Normal People. The Bible for Normal People.

Jacobsen, D. S. (2014). Fortress Biblical Preaching Commentaries: Mark. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2014). Feasting on the Gospels: Mark (A Feasting on the Word Commentary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Merriam-Webster. (2024, January 5). Scratching the Surface of ‘From Scratch’. Retrieved from Merriam-Webster Dictionary and Thesaurus: https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Sabin, M. N. (2002). Reopening the Word: Reading Mark as Theology in the Context of Early Judaism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

---

[1] (Merriam-Webster, 2024)

[2] Luke 3:38.

[3] Revelation 21:1.

Sermon: Snakes!

The following is the sermon I preached at First Presbyterian Church in Petersburg on March 15, 2014.

• Lectionary: Year B, Lent 4
• Text: Numbers 21:4-9; John 3:(10-) 14-21
• Audio as it was preached (30 minutes)

Introduction

The Bible is full of different kinds of stories. Some are feel-good, others are more challenging. Some are peculiar, and a few are quite bizarre. Today’s story about the snakes attacking the Israelites falls into the bizarre. Not only bizarre, but also quite challenging because the picture of God is not particularly flattering; and it wouldn’t be at all irresponsible to say that the God here resembles a petty, vengeful, and capricious deity of the nations surrounding Israel.

What do we do with this story? It’s in the Bible. Two common ways of dealing with this text are: We can ignore it – that’s an option. Or, we can take it as a factual description of God – that’s another option. Neither is particularly appealing.

Another option is to ignore the details found in Numbers 21 and rather go straight to John 3 where Jesus takes this story and applies it to himself. But that too, on the surface raises some problematic questions. One is that it completely ignores that Numbers speaks of God causing death. Another is that the snake and Jesus appear equated to one another.

Yet another option is to read it strictly as something that happened in the past with no bearing upon our present-day view of God and on our lives. There is value in this method. For example, the Hebrews – the Israelites – were a strict monotheist, where the only heavenly power was YHWH. In a setting where all events, particularly unexplainable ones, were attributable to a deity, the Israelites had no choice other than to attribute both good and evil to YHWH. The other nations and peoples had multiple gods and spirits who could be responsible for a subset of acts, but the Israelites did not. It was only late in Hebrew history, perhaps as late as after the Jewish exile, in which the concept of a devil or Satan first appears in concrete form.

But what about the serpent in Genesis that caused the Fall of Adam and Eve? Good question. In ancient mythologies, serpents were ambiguous creatures. They could be both good and evil, a bringer of life as well as a source of death, they could be wise but also cunning. Even during Jesus’ time, the “good” aspects of serpents were recognized, with him making a statement, “Be wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.” In later times including ours, the symbol of the medical profession is that of a serpent wrapped around a pole. The point here is that the serpent found in Genesis 3, as it would have been seen from the ancients’ eyes, could not be considered unambiguously evil and the connection with Satan certainly was not present. It was only in the Christian era that the connection was finally made as fact.

But I noticed something interesting when I re-read the story of the Fall in conjunction with the story of the attack of the serpents in Numbers. They seem to have a number of characteristics of being parallel accounts. Genesis tells the story from a broad perspective that includes all humankind. The Numbers account reads like a similar story, but told in a context specific to the Israelites.

The Fall, Revisited

In our modernist, individualistic, Western minds, Adam and Eve represent two individuals. But they are actually archetypes, or symbols that represent the beginnings of humankind. They may have been individuals, but that is not the point of the Genesis account. The points of the Genesis account is that humankind is responsible for their own troubles, because they sought to take control of their own destinies. To us it doesn’t seem fair that the decisions of individuals so long ago affect us today. But this wouldn’t have troubled the original tellers and readers of Genesis because all humankind continue to succumb to the desire to be in control of themselves.

Likewise the story of the Israelites complaining in the wilderness is a story about them wanting to wrest control away from God. They were tired of the provisions from God – the manna. Not only tired, but they detested it; they called it worthless. They wanted to return to Egypt, the thing that was forbidden to them. This is similar to Adam and Eve rejecting their God-given food and desiring the one thing that was prohibited to them. Notice too, that both stories revolve around what God has given to the people for their food.

As in the Genesis story, was it literally everyone that complained and asked to return to Egypt? Perhaps, but even if not, in the collectivist, group culture of the ancients, the idea that a select few’s actions negatively impact the entire tribe or nation was not a problematic concept. We see this concept illustrated many times in the Old Testament – e.g., Achan’s sin at Jericho, David’s sin in taking a census. This is similar to the idea that Adam and Eve’s sin infected all humankind for all history.

What happens when the people decide that they no longer want God’s directions and provisions? They encounter serpents. In both cases the results of their encounters are given as death. In the Genesis account, physical death is not immediate, but their ultimate destiny becomes certain. In the Numbers account, physical death comes swiftly for those bitten by the vipers.

In both cases life is forfeited and there is no way back. The curse of death falls and envelops humankind and the Israelites.

God Intervenes

However, God’s love compels him to reverse the curse.

The details are different in each story. In Genesis, it is God who takes the initiative. In Numbers, it is the people who ask Moses to intervene with God on their behalf. But in both cases, it is God who provides the means to break and reverse the curse of death. And in both cases, just as the curse was brought on by a serpent, the curse will be broken through a serpent.

In Genesis, God curses the serpent. Its status will be lower than that of all the other creatures. God also describes how humankind will continue to struggle against sin and its effects, but gives hope by giving them the possibility of defending themselves against the curse of sin and death. This is the most appropriate reading of Genesis 3:14-15. The idea that the serpent represents the devil and the striking of the serpent’s head represents Christ’s defeat over Satan, is a late interpretation; one that is not present in the text of Genesis. In fact, the word “crush” so often seen in translations is not in the text; rather the word is “strike” or “bruise” in both lines of 3:15b – hardly a fatal blow. So at this point, Adam and Eve are not given a prophetic vision into the future destruction of evil, but are given a picture of an ongoing battle between humankind and the curse. They are given enough hope so that they can continue on with their immediate lives.

Likewise in the wilderness, the Israelites receive a hope of reversal of their curse of death. But the curse itself is not removed – the vipers remain to trouble them. God commands Moses to create a bronze serpent, put it on a pole, and raise it up so that anyone bitten by a viper can look upon it and have the curse reversed. This is almost a magical action because people of this time believed that in some cases a representation of their problem could be the cure or solution. It shows how God is willing to accommodate misunderstandings that people have, in order to be merciful.

It is interesting that the word that is often translated as serpent in Number 21:8 is literally, seraph, meaning “fiery” and a word that is found elsewhere (Isaiah 6) in the Old Testament to represent an angelic being. Perhaps it isn’t coincidence that seraph appears in Numbers and cherubim (kerub), which can be translated “winged creatures wielding flaming swords” (CEB) appears in Genesis 3:24.

In both cases then, the curse falls upon the people but God intervenes to make a way to reverse the curse and bring hope. But will the curse always remain with humankind and with the Israelites?

Jesus becomes the curse to destroy it forever

I think that what I discussed so far is the appropriate context in which to finally understand Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus that is found in John 3:10-15 and Paul’s exposition found in Galatians 3:10-13.

John 3:10 "Jesus answered, "You are a teacher of Israel and you don't know these things? ¹¹ I assure you that we speak about what we know and testify about what we have seen, but you don't receive our testimony. ¹² If I have told you about earthly things and you don't believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? ¹³ No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Human One. ¹⁴ Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so must the Human One be lifted up ¹⁵ so that everyone who believes in him will have eternal life. (CEB)

Galatians 3:10 All those who rely on the works of the Law are under a curse, because it is written, Everyone is cursed who does not keep on doing all the things that have been written in the Law scroll. [Deut. 27:26] ¹¹ But since no one is made righteous by the Law as far as God is concerned, it is clear that the righteous one will live on the basis of faith. [Hab. 2:4] ¹² The Law isn't based on faith; rather, the one doing these things will live by them. [Lev. 18:5] ¹³ Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us—because it is written, Everyone who is hung on a tree is cursed. [Deut. 21:23] (CEB)

Just as Adam and Eve are archetypes that represent the entirety of humankind, Jesus is the new archetype that represents all of humankind. It is, in this sense that Jesus Christ is our substitute. Jesus did not go to the cross to satisfy some kind of God’s wrath or to intervene in some supposed penalty imposed by God. Rather, Jesus willingly took upon himself all that the curse of sin and death represents, and destroyed it by becoming the archetypal curse itself and taking it into the realm of death. Through his resurrection, Jesus Christ demonstrated that the power of sin and death would remain in the grave, and that the power of love and sacrifice survives. This power of love is the power to restore and redeem all humankind from the curse that has infected them.

Thus we can see now how it is appropriate that Jesus represents himself as a serpent. The serpent represents the curse, and Jesus becomes the curse. In physics when matter and antimatter collide, both particles are annihilated and great energy is released. When Jesus, the source of life, took upon himself the curse, the very opposite of who he is, could a similar thing have happened? Both the man Jesus and the curse of death, as they were before, are annihilated and no longer exist. In its place a new archetypal man, Jesus Christ, is resurrected with the unlimited energy to restore, heal, and re-create all who come to him and trust him. (The details of the metaphor aren’t perfect, but I hope the illustration suffices.)

Summary: We are Part of the New Creation

I think 2 Corinthians 5:14-21 provides a fitting summary and conclusion.

2 Corinthians 5:14 The love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: one died for the sake of all; therefore, all died. ¹⁵ He died for the sake of all so that those who are alive should live not for themselves but for the one who died for them and was raised.

¹⁶ So then, from this point on we won't recognize people by human standards. Even though we used to know Christ by human standards, that isn't how we know him now. ¹⁷ So then, if anyone is in Christ, that person is part of the new creation. The old things have gone away, and look, new things have arrived!

¹⁸ All of these new things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and who gave us the ministry of reconciliation. ¹⁹ In other words, God was reconciling the world to himself through Christ, by not counting people's sins against them. He has trusted us with this message of reconciliation.

²⁰ So we are ambassadors who represent Christ. God is negotiating with you through us. We beg you as Christ's representatives, "Be reconciled to God!" ²¹ God caused the one who didn't know sin to be sin for our sake so that through him we could become the righteousness of God. (CEB)

We are no longer captives to the curse of sin and death. We are part of the new creation. We have this message to spread to the world: that God’s love compelled him to take sin and death upon himself so that all humankind could be rescued from it. If God is like that, who or what do we have to fear? What is stopping you from trusting God and being reconciled to him?

Let us pray…