Sermon: Faith and Faithfulness

Abraham's Journey to Canaan - 1614

Lectionary: Proper 5A

Texts: Genesis 12:1-9; Romans 4:13-25; Matthew 9:9-13, 18-26

Introduction

For what would you give up all your comforts and stability of life? Is there anything for which you would pull up all roots, cut all relational ties, and embark on a nomadic life, not knowing whether you would ever settle down again?

Given our modern context with its technology and communications, it’s difficult to imagine the Bronze Age world in which leaving one’s place of belonging – the land on which one was born and would inherit and all the family, clan, and tribal ties – meant risking one’s own very life and survival.

Yet Abraham (or technically, at the time, Abram) did just that. Why?

This turns out to be yet another instance where the story is quite familiar, and because it has been heard so many times, we assume a lot about it that just isn’t there in the actual text. But there are also other details that aren’t in the immediate text of the narrative but can help fill in the broader context. Some of these can be found by looking at other texts in the Bible, and others from historical and cultural studies of the times and places in question.

Gods of Abram’s Household

The text reads that Yahweh spoke to Abram and told him to “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you.” (Gen 12:1[1]) Because God commands, Abram obeys. It’s as simple as that. Or is it?

Most of us read these patriarchal narratives with the assumption of monotheism, where the one true God is already known and worshiped. But that is not at all the case. When archaeology is examined, monotheism among the Israelites does not take hold until the Jews return from their Babylonian Exile. Up until their captivity into exile, most Israelites assumed the existence of, and often worshiped, multiple gods.[2]

Abram and his father’s household was no different. There is evidence that their primary deity was Sin, or the moon god of Sumeria. Many of the names found in the family may have references to the worship of the moon god.[3] The city of Haran is known to have had a temple to Sin.[4]

Abram does descend from the line of Shem, so it shouldn’t be surprising to find Yahweh among the household gods. But it is quite possible and (in my opinion) likely Yahweh had been relegated to one of the minor household deities.[5] We aren’t told how Yahweh speaks to Abram. It could be through divination, it could be through omens, it could be through a dream.[6]

The One Thing that Matters to Abram

However it happens, Abram hears from Yahweh. But why heed the words of one god among so many? As for Abram, there is nothing special about Yahweh. Except one thing. Yahweh promises Abram that he will have descendants. Back in Genesis 11:30, it was noted that Abram was married to Sarai, who was barren. We read that when Abram hears from Yahweh, he is about seventy-five years old. It would seem nearly impossible to have a child under these circumstances. Yet that is Yahweh’s promise. And it is the one thing for which Abram would and does leave his father’s family and ancestral lands. It is the one and only thing that is of value to him.

It was no simple or easy matter to leave one’s household behind.

A man was identified in the ancient world as a member of his father’s household. When the head of the household died, his heir assumed that title and its responsibilities. It is also identified with ancestral lands and property. By leaving his father’s household, Abram was thus giving up his inheritance and his right to family property.

Land, family and inheritance were among the most significant elements in ancient society. For farmers and herdsmen land was their livelihood. For city dwellers land represented their political identity. Descendants represented the future. Children provided for their parents in old age and enabled the family line to extend another generation. They gave proper burial to their parents and honored the names of their ancestors. In some of the ancient Near Eastern cultures these were considered essential to maintaining a comfortable existence in the afterlife. When Abram gave up his place in his father’s household, he forfeited his security.[7]

Abram was not only forfeiting his own security, but he was also turning his back on caring for his ancestors and the rest of the household. I strongly suspect that there was tremendous pushback and appeals to change his mind. Yet the one thing – having descendants of his own – was stronger. And one of the gods, Yahweh, promised that one thing to him. 

Abram’s Self-Interest

Lest we assume that Abram is just that devoted and willing to follow words he hears from a god, we only need to go a few verses into the next narrative to discover that Abram is self-serving and conniving. At least at this point in life, Abram’s primary interest is making sure he prospers.

¹⁰ Now there was a famine in the land. So Abram went down to Egypt to reside there as an alien, for the famine was severe in the land. ¹¹ When he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know well that you are a woman beautiful in appearance, ¹² and when the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife’; then they will kill me, but they will let you live. ¹³ Say you are my sister, so that it may go well with me because of you and that my life may be spared on your account.” (Genesis 12:10-13)

When Abram hears from Yahweh the promise of descendants and a great nation to boot, I’m sure he notices there are no conditions other than leaving his ancestral ties. There are no ongoing requirements. There is nothing required to be given to Yahweh once the promise is fulfilled. It’s all win for Abram. Subsequent promises and covenants Yahweh makes with Abram do not contain conditions either. This Yahweh seems to be all about giving and not requiring nor expecting anything in return. This is about as unconditional a promise as one can be.[8]

Although Abram left behind security of land, belonging to a household, and the comforts of living in a city, he did take along sufficient wealth that could be carried or walk on their own – livestock, portable wealth, his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and slaves. Abram gave up much, but according to the text, certainly not everything.

Definitions of Terms Matter

Although the Genesis 12 text does not explicitly state that Abram believed Yahweh, farther into the Abraham cycle of stories, in chapter 15 we read that Abram believed Yahweh. I think it is appropriate to read Abram’s believing back into chapter 12.

But what does it mean to believe? What is faith? In the reading from Romans, we heard the two terms faith and believe multiple times in Paul’s use of the story of God’s promise made to Abraham. The first verse that we heard from Romans reads:

¹³ For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:13)

Righteousness is yet another term that pops up in frequent association with faith and belief. Many of Paul’s references to Abraham in this section of Romans comes from Genesis 15, including one that is the key to Paul’s argument, “And he [Abram] believed the LORD, and the LORD reckoned it to him as righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6)

Frameworks for Defining Theological Terms

Those of us who were raised in the modern Western world traditionally approach the concepts of faith, belief, and righteousness from a perspective of science and law. We tend to emphasize knowable facts and attributes of God. Faith and belief then, becomes accepting and believing those data points about God. Righteousness is a term weighed with judicial and moral overtones. So, a righteous person is one who is morally good and does their best to always keep the law.

Maybe it comes as a surprise that this kind of thinking is exactly what Paul is writing against in Romans chapter 4. Or maybe it shouldn’t be a surprise at all. The Roman Empire was fastidious in its laws and observances. There were detailed and specific rituals to be performed to maintain one’s good standing with the gods. It is to those who were raised in this environment, immersed in this way of thinking about the law, to whom Paul writes. And it should be noted that we in the West are inheritors of this way of thinking, both in secular politics and in religion.

Paul, even though he is a Roman citizen, is thoroughly Jewish and Hebrew in the way he approaches the concepts of faith, belief, and righteousness. Instead of a legal framework for these terms, Paul understands and utilizes them within a relational framework.[9] The starting point of faith for Paul is not accepting facts about God, but rather, trust in the reliability of a relationship. Belief is not about an intellectual assent about God’s attributes, but rather, the confidence that God will deliver on God’s promises. And righteousness is primarily not about being in good moral or legal standing with God, but in a trusting relationship with God.

That is why Paul writes about Abraham, “No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, being fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. Therefore ‘it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’” (Romans 4:20-22)

Stated another way, faith is trust in God’s absolute faithfulness. And that is the only human response necessary and appropriate to God’s invitation to be in right relationship with God; aka, righteousness. Unlike with other deities and nearly all human relationships, there are no conditions, no rituals, and no imposed penalties. The offer from God is unconditional.[10] This is grace.

Examples of Faith (Trust)

This is the framework in which we can read the gospel text for today. Yes, it begins with the call of Matthew into Jesus’ group and Matthew seems to get up and follow Jesus, leaving behind his prior life, much like Abraham. But in the broader textual context, the call appears to be just a minor detail. It seems mostly a narrative hook to bring us to the series of other vignettes that follow.

The thematic thread that I see going through the vignettes of our gospel reading is the question, “What kinds of people place their trust in God (or more precisely here, in Jesus)?”

First, there is Matthew and then all his family, friends, and acquaintances. They were generally thought to be socially unacceptable at best, and treasonous at worst. Jesus invites Matthew to trust in him, and Matthew does and brings many others to get a chance to meet Jesus. Those who thought they could never be fully accepted by God are now being invited into a relationship with God.

But then, a leader of the people (Mark identifies this person as a synagogue leader) comes to ask Jesus for help. Jesus does not turn aside the request from someone with higher social standing.

And then a woman with a flow of blood for twelve years quietly approaches Jesus, not wanting to make a scene nor to be known. Here is a person who is ritually impure, to be avoided. When she does get her wish to touch Jesus’ cloak and is healed, Jesus notices and commends her for her faith (or shall we say, trust?). With her healing, she can return to normal society and restore relationships that had been ruptured due to her condition.

And finally, Jesus touches a dead girl (although he does say that she “is not dead but sleeping”). Touching a corpse rendered a person ritually unclean. Yet that fact does not stop Jesus. Instead of being contaminated, Jesus restores life to the girl and restores relationships that moments ago were, metaphorically speaking, dead.

Faith Begins and Ends with God

Each of these is a vignette of someone placing their trust in God and God’s promises, and God holding to the promise. A broad range of social standing, gender, and age are included as an example of God’s encompassing acceptance and faithfulness.

God’s faithfulness does not depend on human response. It is God’s to unilaterally and unconditionally offer. I think that is the most important point that is being made across the three readings. Human faith in God is fallible. Abraham’s trust in God faltered many times. The churches to whom Paul wrote often had serious issues. Jesus’ had to often rebuke his disciples for lack of faith. Yet God remained and remains faithful to any and all who dare take a chance on God’s promises and begin the walk of trust in God’s reliability. That is faith and faithfulness.

In the name of God who provides and sustains,

In the name of God who walked the path of faith,

In the name of God who stirs us to walk in faith…

---

[1] Bible texts from the NRSV Updated Edition, unless otherwise noted.

[2] Many of the references to monotheism in the Old Testament may be seen as aspirational or idealistic; it can be seen as exilic and post-exilic editors attempting to explain the reason for being conquered and exiled, and a polemic against their prior history of religious unfaithfulness.

[3] New International Commentary, Old Testament, Genesis 1-17. Commentary on Genesis 11:27.

“Yet the possible connection of Terah (Heb. teraḥ) with the word yārēaḥ, “moon,” and yeraḥ, “lunar month,” if substantiated, would suggest that Abram’s family and ancestors were worshipers of the moon. One suggestion is that Terah means “Têr is (the divine) brother (or protector, Heb. ʾaḥ),” têr being a dialectal variant of šhr, a South Arabic term for the moon. Sarai (Sarah) is the equivalent of šarratu, “queen,” an Akkadian translation of a Sumerian name for Ningal, the female partner of the moon-god Sin. Milcah is the same name as the goddess Malkatu, the daughter of Sin. Laban (Heb. lāḇān) means “white,” and leḇāná, “the white one,” is a poetic term for the full moon. In addition, both Ur and Haran were thriving centers of moon worship; thus it is probable that the theological milieu in which Abram lived for a good bit of his life was one in which the cult focused its adoration on moon worship.”

[4] IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament. Commentary on Genesis 11:31.

[5] Wondrium, Understanding the Old Testament: Lecture 5; Abraham, the Father of Three Faiths.

               “There is no suggestion in the text that Abraham has met God or knows anything about him. Later Jewish tradition filled in all sorts of stories from Abraham’s earlier life, but those are not in the text here.

               According to verse 1, Abraham is being asked to relinquish “his land and his family.” He is being asked to leave Mesopotamia—that is, ancient Iraq. Essentially, Abraham is asked to relinquish rich mercantile cities for a life of nomadism, leaving behind gold and jade.

               There is no indication that Abraham has any established credentials for this deity that has made this command.”

[6] It should be noted that there are many behaviors and actions that are taken by the patriarchs that would later be proscribed in Israel. Divination is one. Marriage and sexual relations with siblings or half-siblings is another.

[7] IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. Commentary on Genesis 12:1.

[8] Wondrium, Understanding the Old Testament: Lecture 5; Abraham, the Father of Three Faiths.

               “In chapter 15, God reiterates an earlier promise that Abraham will have abundant descendants. God provides him a visual image of how many descendants he will have, but that supplies no basis at all to shore up any confidence. Still, Abraham accepted God as reliable…

               God is making promises to Abraham that are unconditional. There’s nothing Abraham has to do in order for God to keep his side of the bargain. Symbolically, God binds himself in this treaty ceremony without asking Abraham to do the same.”

[9] Richards, E. Randolph and James, Richard. Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes. “Grace and faith are the language of relationship.” (108)

[10] Richards. “God, however, is not like the typical patron. God generously gives patronage to all, including undeserving and treacherous clients, because he can and wants to.” (108)

Sermon: Signs

Lectionary: Pentecost (A)
Text: Numbers 11:24-30; Acts 2:1-21; John 20:19-23

Introduction

I’m sure you have heard the saying, “Don’t put God in a box,” or something like it, perhaps many times in your experience. We all understand what that means and its intent – that God is present and works beyond our small understandings and expectations of how God is supposed to be and act. But it is much more difficult for us to take that saying to heart and for us to interact with the world as God does.

We have our comfort zones. Our little boxes. And perhaps that is often truer in religious settings. We have our traditions and ways of doing things that are comfortable. We have a nice order and liturgy. We know what to expect and when to expect them. Sure, an occasional change might be nice, but don’t make the change too big. There are boundaries that define good order. We like everything and everyone to fit within those boundaries. It makes us uncomfortable when the boundaries are breached. It might possibly even be thought of as unacceptable and best to be kept out and away.

Prophesying in the Ancient World

I suspect most of us would be rather uncomfortable with the behavior of prophets and the act of prophesying in the ancient world, including among the ancient Israelites.

We typically think of prophecy as words rationally spoken or written down by someone about future events. But that is not at all at the top of the priority list of ancient prophets and prophecies. The purpose of prophecy was to communicate messages from a divine being to humans. The prophet was an intermediary between the divine realm and the human realm. In many cases, the act of prophesying was thought to literally involve the possession of the mediating prophet by a divine spirit. And the prophet would speak and act as if possessed. Prophets uttered and acted ecstatically, frequently through unintelligible speech and noises and bewildering behaviors. In other cases, however, prophecies could be delivered as normal speech. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous examples of both types of prophesying.[1]

What would we think if someone among us, right now, started speaking and acting ecstatically? Or perhaps even just got up and started to declare to us a supposed message from God? I do think most of us would immediately get very uncomfortable, perhaps edging away, and wondering about their state of mind. We might think through modern science and suspect that they might have some kind of neurological issue or having a mental health episode.

But in the ancient world, this was expected of religious intermediaries such as priests and prophets, and in fact a sign of divine presence and authority.[2]

Yet even though ecstatic prophecy might appear chaotic, it followed cultural and religious expectations. In our reading from Numbers, when two individuals, Eldad and Medad, prophesied outside the approved and expected place and time, there were some who tried to silence them. Moses, however, recognized that God is larger than the narrow boundaries created by their religious and cultural traditions, and wished that God’s spirit would pour out on even more of them.

Jesus, too, had to confront the narrowness of his own disciples.[3] John reported to Jesus that he tried to stop someone from throwing out demons in Jesus’ name, because that person wasn’t among their specific group and physically following Jesus. Jesus rebuked John, “Don’t stop him,” and ended with a well-known saying, “Whoever isn’t against us is for us.”

Pentecost Sunday

The first Pentecost in Christian history fits within this same prophetic pattern and expectations.

¹ When Pentecost Day arrived, they were all together in one place. ² Suddenly a sound from heaven like the howling of a fierce wind filled the entire house where they were sitting. ³ They saw what seemed to be individual flames of fire alighting on each one of them. ⁴ They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them to speak. (Acts 2:1-4 CEB)

The act of divine possession or inspiration, as some prefer it to be called, is obvious. The sign of divine presence and authority is the ability for all to speak in other languages. This has occasionally been explained that there were enough disciples who knew enough other languages so that it seemed like a supernatural event occurred, even though it didn’t. But the plainest explanation that the author of Acts wants his readers to understand is that these disciples were given unusual abilities to speak languages that they had never spoken before.

Not the Gift of Tongues (Glossolalia)

The event of Pentecost has often been conflated with the speaking or use of tongues, technically known as glossolalia, but they are two very different things. We don’t have time to delve into details today, but for those interested, Paul makes a clear distinction between the spiritual gifts of prophesying vs. tongues in 1 Corinthians 14. The gift of tongues is most closely associated with ecstatic utterances that are unintelligible. The gift of prophecy is intelligible without an interpreter.

They were mystified because everyone heard them speaking in their native languages. ⁷ They were surprised and amazed, saying, “Look, aren’t all the people who are speaking Galileans, every one of them? ⁸ How then can each of us hear them speaking in our native language? ⁹ Parthians, Medes, and Elamites; as well as residents of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, ¹⁰ Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the regions of Libya bordering Cyrene; and visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism), ¹¹ Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the mighty works of God in our own languages!” (Acts 2:6-11 CEB)

Gift of Prophesying

What we read about in Acts is the spiritual gift of prophecy in action. The disciples act as intermediaries between God and other humans. They offer a message from God to the people.

Like in other prophetic acts, there are naysayers.

¹³ Others jeered at them, saying, “They’re full of new wine!” (Acts 2:13 CEB)

Peter’s response to the accusation begins,

“Judeans and everyone living in Jerusalem! Know this! Listen carefully to my words! ¹⁵ These people aren’t drunk, as you suspect; after all, it’s only nine o’clock in the morning!” (Acts 2:14-15 CEB)

It might seem like a strange rebuttal to our ears, as we clearly know that there is nothing that physically prevents someone, or even large groups, from becoming drunk early in the morning. However, getting drunk before 9 a.m. was considered improper and something just not done in this society.

In the Mediterranean world, even the worst debauchery did not begin until [emphasis mine] nine in the morning (Cicero, Philippics 2.41.104: “But how many days did you most disgrace fully carouse in that villa! From the third hour there was drinking, gaming, vomiting”).[4]

In any case, it apparently was a strong enough argument against drunkenness.

All Receive the Spirit’s Gift

Peter continues with a citation from Joel 2:28-32, with a few modifications. Peter’s point is that the last days have arrived because a clear sign from God has been placed upon Jesus’ disciples. These disciples include men and women, young and old, and wealthy and poor; and the message from God is going to not just Jews and those who speak Aramaic, but to all languages and peoples present in the Roman Empire and perhaps beyond. Peter ends the first part of his rebuttal with an inclusive appeal,

²¹ And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Acts 2:21 CEB)

In the next part of Peter’s speech past our reading today, Peter identifies Jesus of Nazareth, who, because of his death, resurrection, and ascension is Lord and Christ. The gift of belonging to and following Jesus the Christ is the Holy Spirit. On Pentecost, the outward sign was the ability for the disciples to communicate the gospel in as many languages as was necessary.

Signs of God’s Presence Today

But that was then. We are living in 2023, in a modern, rational, scientific world. Ecstatic behaviors and speech are looked upon much differently now. Even the very claim that one has received a message from God is seen with suspicion. I should add that there are some large segments of Christianity that do accept these as present-day manifestations. But outside of these groups, they are generally not considered authenticating signs, and certainly not by those who are outside Christianity. So, what are the signs of the Holy Spirit possessing or inspiring us and the church today?

Jesus in America Survey

In March 2022, the Episcopal Church released a national study it had conducted through Ipsos.[5] One of the findings were around what Christians and non-Christians (including those of other religions as well as non-religious) respectively thought Jesus taught and what was the most important teaching of Jesus. Another area of finding was how Christians viewed themselves vs. how non-Christians viewed Christians.

Of the teachings of Jesus included in the survey, there was agreement on several of the teachings of Jesus that all thought Jesus had taught. Among the many agreements: Love your neighbor, moral teachings, love your enemies, not judging other without first judging yourself, feed the hungry, love God, turn the other cheek, and how to live in community with other people.

But in the question about what the respondents considered to be the most important teaching of Jesus, there was less agreement. For Christians, love God was the most important. For non-Christians love of neighbor was thought to be most important. Next for non-Christians was Jesus’ teachings around not judging others, but for Christians this falls to around fourth to seventh place depending on subsegment of Christianity. Love of neighbor, too, falls to second to fourth place for Christians, depending on the subsegment. For evangelical Christians, after love of God, Jesus’ teachings that he is the exclusive way to salvation comes in second place.

What is most interesting and where disagreement is most prominent is in how Christians view themselves vs. how non-Christians view Christians. Christians view themselves (in order) as giving, compassionate, loving, respectful, friendly, honest, humble, sharing, and truthful. Those of other religions and the non-religious, however, view Christians as (in approximate order): hypocritical, judgmental, self-righteous, arrogant, unforgiving, disrespectful. Any positive characteristics show up lower in the list, and include friendly, giving, and compassionate.

The most polarized result shows up in the question of whether Christians that each segment knows represent the values and teachings of Jesus. Even Christians surveyed only say about a third of Christians they know represent a lot the values and teachings of Jesus. And for the non-Christians surveyed, that number falls into the single digits – as low as 2% from the non-religious.

An Interpretation and Suggestion

There are many ways to interpret survey data, and what I suggest next is just one possibility.

What I see is that Americans (who were the ones surveyed), irrespective of religious affiliation, generally have some common agreement to Jesus’ teaching and values. Christians, regardless of denomination, tend to put the vertical relationship with God and beliefs about God higher on the priority than horizontal relationships with other people, sometimes much more so. The non-Christians look at Jesus and they see his relationships with others much more than his teachings about God. When they look at Christians, us, they see a huge gap between what they see as Jesus’ important teachings and what they see Christians living and modeling.

I suggest that perhaps the most impactful sign today of God’s presence in God’s community is a better congruence between what Jesus taught and lived, what the church values and teaches, and how individual Christians live out the teachings of Jesus.

Conclusion

Here is a quick summary of how Jesus lived and related to his world: Jesus’ forgiveness and acceptance offended and threatened the religious status quo, the temple system, and the priests. Jesus’ nonviolence offended his fellow nationalists. Jesus’ inclusiveness offended those who create hierarchies and divisions based on race, nationalities, and religion. Jesus’ egalitarianism offended any who subscribed to the hierarchical structures that were the social, political, and religious norms. Jesus broke down boundaries. Jesus gave his life for these values. God raised Jesus up to vindicate these values. Jesus sent and continues to send the Holy Spirit to animate his followers with these values.

Jesus said to his disciples, “Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, so I am sending you.” Then he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”[6] In the Upper Room on Pentecost Sunday, the Spirit poured out to include all peoples, languages, genders, races, and nationalities into the movement initiated by Jesus Christ.

Will we allow the Holy Spirit to direct our lives after the pattern of Jesus? A crucifix is a symbol of Christ, but are we willing to go beyond that and truly live a cruciform life and thereby wear the sign of Christ’s presence, power, and authority in our very being?

In the name of God who is the creator and sustainer of all, the God who broke boundaries, and God who continues to move to break boundaries.

---

[1] Prophecy and Ecstasy | Ancient Prophecy: Near Eastern, Biblical, and Greek Perspectives | Oxford Academic (oup.com), Chapter 5.

[2] IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament. Numbers 11:25.

[3] Mark 9:38-40.

[4] Reading the New Testament Commentary, Acts 2:14.

[5] Jesus in America – The Episcopal Church (https://www.episcopalchurch.org/jesus-in-america/)

[6] John 20:21-22 (CEB, with my edits). 

Sermon: In My Father's House

Lectionary: Easter 5A
Text: John 14:1-14

Introduction

I recently watched lectures on ancient religions of Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean, which included the period of Rome from the formation of the Republic to when Christianity became her state religion. There were many times during the lectures when I could see connections between what was being said and the texts in our Bible. Today, I want us to take a brief excursion back in time to ancient Rome. I think it may offer some insights into today’s gospel reading (John 14:1-14) and aid us in improving our understanding of the text. There are so many details that are interesting, but we will keep to broad topics that are most relevant to us for today’s text. I also add a caveat: the Roman context is helpful in understanding how the text was probably heard, but we should not assume it is something to be reverted to and emulated.

Time Travel: Ancient Roman Household

First, let us travel to explore a Roman house. We will look at one that belongs to a prominent and wealthy citizen.

The structure is rectangular, with walls around three sides and the front being more open. There is an entry in the center of the front section and several open stalls flanking the center. These stalls are used for commerce and retail business as they face the public street. The three remaining sides are solid and, in our example, have a height of two floors.

There is an image at the entrance, the Lar Familiaris, or the guardian deity of the household. From the entry a narrow hallway led to the atrium, where an opening was found in the roof and a pool was located immediately below to collect rainwater. The atrium was a semi-public area where guests could be entertained, and official household business was conducted.  

Farther back was another courtyard with the roof open. The kitchen and the dining areas are found off this area.

All around the perimeter are found other rooms, on both the ground floor and the upper floor. These are bedrooms for the household members. The household consists of the paterfamilias, the head of the household, his wife, adult sons and their wives, daughters who had not yet married, servants, and slaves. The paterfamilias was father to them all.

Gods and Paterfamilias

The house was inhabited by numerous household deities. The house was, effectively, a domestic temple. All aspects of life were connected to one god or another. One of the primary duties of the paterfamilias was to ensure that proper ritual and offerings were observed so that the gods would be cared for and not get angry. Even though the paterfamilias was the head of the household, he was at the mercy of the ancestral gods and spirits. Just as it was important to maintain honor and avoid shame among living persons, it was perhaps even more important to maintain good relationships with the dead. Bringing honor to the paterfamilias and the house was something that all members of the household, from sons to slaves, accepted and carried out.

It was believed that every person had an indwelling and animating spirit within them. This was an aspect of a deity that was carried by each person. Men had a genius (from which we get the word, genius). Women had a juno. The genius of the paterfamilias was particularly important, and it was a duty of the entire household to offer worship to this genius. In their mythologies, even gods could have a genius – a spirit of a deity within a god.

Roman Marriage

The household gods and the domestic religious observances were passed down from the father to the eldest, legitimate son. The purpose of marriage in ancient Rome was solely to produce legitimate heirs. Arranging for and ensuring that the marriage of his sons was conducted properly was one of the primary duties of the father. Daughters were thought of essentially as temporary occupants of a house who would be sent off to their permanent homes through marriage.

The fathers of each household came together to arrange the marriage and negotiate terms. A wedding date was set. The wedding itself took place at the bride’s father’s home. After completing the prescribed religious rituals, and offering was made to Jupiter, usually a cake. A portion of this cake was consumed by the bride and groom, followed by a dinner with all of the guests. After dinner the bride was escorted to the new husband’s house, accompanied by anyone who wanted to join in the torchlight procession. The groom carried the bride over the threshold because it was considered a bad omen if the bride tripped and fell in her first entry to the house. Another feast was held at the new household. For as long as the father was alive, however, the married son was still under the authority of the father, as long as he was paterfamilias. The primary role of a wife was to produce legitimate children, preferably sons. She also managed domestic duties and cared for her children.

This concludes our very brief excursion back in time. As we return to our present time, we should keep in mind that this was the “air” of those living in the ancient Roman empire. These religious, social, and domestic structures, traditions, and norms were the frameworks in which they understood and interpreted their life and reality. This was the context in which the gospel of John was written, and in which the audience heard the words.

Back to the Present

Many Mansions?

My childhood Bible translation was the King James Version. The first part of John 14:2 in that version reads, “In My Father’s house are many mansions.” As a child, I recall being taught how people who are saved and go to heaven will have grand mansions with huge properties on which each sit. Looking at it now, it seems to be an image that is influenced more by individualism, independence, and American values.

Rather, the image we ought to see is the Roman house and household. The NIV translates the text as, “My Father’s house has many rooms.” And that fits much better into the Roman world and its social and domestic structures. God is the paterfamilias, and he has room for all of his household.

Marriage Metaphor

When Jesus says, “When I go to prepare a place for you, I will return and take you to be with me so that where I am you will be too,” his saying can be interpreted as a marriage metaphor. The wedding has already taken place, here on earth. One could view the Last Supper as a kind of wedding meal. But that is just the first step of the marriage process. The bride must get to the groom’s house.

And here the metaphors get a bit mixed, at least in my opinion. On one hand, Jesus will return to take his people back to his house. But on the other hand, the language is that of a journey that must be undertaken by the bride. When Jesus says, “You know the way to the place I’m going,” he is not talking about map directions, literal or metaphorical. The word we read as “way” is a term used in classical Greek literature to talk about an odyssey or a journey, frequently at the beginning and the end of a quest.

“I am the Way”

It is in response to Thomas’ lack of understanding and question that Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” This statement has often been used in some parts of Christianity to support an exclusivist view of salvation; that is, one must literally believe in and accept Jesus and become a Christian in order to be saved.

The PC(USA) takes a more inclusivist stance:

Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord, and all people everywhere are called to place their faith, hope, and love in him. No one is saved by virtue of inherent goodness or admirable living, for “by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” [Ephesians 2:8]. No one is saved apart from God’s gracious redemption in Jesus Christ. Yet we do not presume to limit the sovereign freedom of “God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” [1 Timothy 2:4]. Thus, we neither restrict the grace of God to those who profess explicit faith in Christ nor assume that all people are saved regardless of faith. Grace, love, and communion belong to God, and are not ours to determine.[1]

When Jesus speaks about himself as the way, he is referring to his recorded life, death, and resurrection. The way is not about getting to a destination. It is about following in the patterns of relating and responding to the world that Jesus forged ahead of us. Later in this Farewell Discourse, Jesus reveals that the Holy Spirit will be sent. With that, the paradox of Jesus going away, yet still leading his people to the Father, is resolved. As long as one is following the way of Jesus and the promptings of the Holy Spirit, they will find their way to the Father and his house.

Indwelling of God

The next several sentences in John are of Jesus describing how he and the Father are one.

⁷ If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

⁸ Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

⁹ Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? ¹⁰ Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. (John 14:7-10 NIV)

Earlier in our time travel back, we learned that the idea that deities could dwell in people and deities could dwell within other gods was a commonly understood concept. Even though the gospel writer avoids direct references to pagan terminology and concepts, the metaphor is one that would have been readily understandable.

How can we know that the Father is just like Jesus? Because the Father is in Jesus. The Father is directing all of Jesus’ words and works. Where Christianity diverges from Roman understanding of gods is the mutual indwelling of the Father in Jesus and Jesus in the Father, simultaneously.

Returning to the marriage metaphor, perhaps many brides would have been apprehensive about entering a new household, under a new paterfamilias. Even though marriages were most often arranged, there was some opportunity for dating or getting to know one another. Perhaps the bride, even though she may have been as young as early to mid-teens, may have come to trust her future husband. But what about his father? What is he like? Even though there are often character resemblances between fathers and sons, they are not identical and could turn out to be quite different.

Jesus tells his anxious disciples that he and his Father are truly identical in character. The vital, animating spirit is mutually indwelling. Immediately beyond the reading for today, Jesus describes how the disciples will have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, and because of that Jesus will be a part of them. And more astonishingly, the disciples will be in Jesus.

House is a Temple is a Person

What I see in this first part of the discourse is Jesus describing a new household to which his followers will enter. But this house is not something physical or even future. The house is Jesus himself. Just as the ancient Roman household was each, individually a temple, so is Jesus. We can go back to John 2:19 and see where very early in the gospel, Jesus speaks of himself as the temple.

It is this context of household and a temple, where loyalty to the paterfamilias is assumed, that we need to place the final sentences from today’s reading:

¹² Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. ¹³ And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. ¹⁴ You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. (John 14:12-14 NIV)

These words are being spoken to those in the family. Whatever work and business each member of the family is undertaking, the goal is the same: to bring honor and glory to the head of the household. For Christians, our paterfamilias is God. Jesus’ name is not some kind of formula or magical spell. Jesus’ name is our devotion to God and the way of life that Jesus demonstrated, while leading to death to the ways of this world, ultimately leads to resurrection and life.

References

·        The Fall of the Pagans and the Origins of Medieval Christianity (Wondrium, The Great Courses), Professor Kenneth W. Harl, Tulane University

·        Pompeii: Daily Life in an Ancient Roman City (Wondrium, The Great Courses), Professor Steven L. Tuck, Miami University

·        The Other Side of History: Daily Life in the Ancient World (Wondrium, The Great Courses), Professor Robert Garland, Colgate University

·        The Pagan World: Ancient Religions before Christianity (Wondrium, The Great Courses), Professor Hans-Friedrich Mueller Union College in Schenectady, New York

·        Roman Marriage and Weddings | UNRV (https://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php)

·        Roman domestic architecture (domus) (article) | Khan Academy (https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizations/roman/x7e914f5b:beginner-guides-to-roman-architecture/a/roman-domestic-architecture-domus)

·        The Roman Domus (House): Architecture and Reconstruction (realmofhistory.com) (https://www.realmofhistory.com/2020/04/08/3d-animations-layout-roman-domus-house/)

 

---

[1] Hope in the Lord (pcusa.org), 2002, p. 11-12; (https://www.pcusa.org/site_media/media/uploads/theologyandworship/pdfs/hopeinthelord.pdf)

Sermon: Victory and Vindication

 

Texts: Acts 10:34-43; Psalm 118:1-2, 14-24; Matthew 28:1-10

Lectionary: Easter Sunday Year A

It was mid-morning on Friday.[1] Acceding to the demands of religious rulers, Roman soldiers had secured Jesus on the cross and driven spikes through his hands and feet. The cross was raised and then dropped into a hole in the ground.

Any hope and joy that was present earlier in the week had long since evaporated. From his entry into Jerusalem, followed by the overturning of tables at the Temple, and his apparent victories in honor contests with religious leaders all seemed like something from a long-distant dream of another world. What was left was a sense of utter defeat and hopelessness.

The leaders who had demanded Jesus’ crucifixion now joined with the soldiers to mock him. They had secured victory over Jesus. The honor they had been losing to Jesus for the past few years had now been recovered. They had finally shamed and defeated Jesus.

Nearly all Jesus’ disciples had fled and gone into hiding. There was only shame left to be associated with Jesus. And the disciples may have thought that the leaders, perhaps sensing blood and also a potential threat from not completely eradicating Jesus’ movement, they would be coming after the disciples, too.

But many of the women followers and disciples of Jesus remained at Calvary, taking it all in. Perhaps they held out hope that Jesus still might get delivered somehow. But the hours passed, and mid-afternoon, around 3 o’clock, Jesus cried out and died. Simultaneously, a great earthquake shook the earth.

Even so, the women stayed and continued to watch. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons, James and John. This was the same mother who had not too long ago asked for Jesus to allow her sons to sit on either side of Jesus in his kingdom.[2] At that time the two, James and John, had said that they could drink from Jesus’ cup, yet they were nowhere to be seen at the cross.[3] It was, ironically, their mother who remained to bear witness.

As the sun began to make its way toward the western horizon and darkness began to creep in from the east, the women saw Joseph of Arimathea arrive with some of his servants, tools, and supplies. They went up to where Jesus’ now lifeless body still hung. They took the cross, lifted it up out of the ground, and laid it gently back down on the ground. They pried out the spikes and untied the cords that were holding Jesus in place. One of the servants unrolled a brand new, linen cloth. They gently lifted Jesus’ broken, bruised, battered, and blood soaked body up from the cross and onto the cloth. They carefully wrapped the cloth around Jesus, and then carried him off the hill.

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary followed the men down the hill and watched as the body was laid in Joseph’s tomb. They watched as a large stone was rolled in front to seal it. There was a sense of finality about this. Jesus was dead. Jesus was buried. Jesus was gone.

Yet, there was something that these women had heard from Jesus’ mouth that nagged at the back of their minds. It was something about a resurrection on the third day.[4] Amidst their grief and sorrow, there was a pinpoint of hope. Yet, they had seen Jesus die. They saw Jesus get placed into the tomb. They remained silent, and sat down on rocks near the tomb. With tear-filled eyes and heaving sobs, they looked at the large stone covering the tomb and then at one another and back.

It was now getting dark and they would have to return to where they were staying; perhaps the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus in Bethany. They thought about Lazarus, and how Jesus commanded the stone covering Lazarus’ tomb to be moved. They could still hear Jesus’ voice as he called for Lazarus to come out of the tomb. Could something similar happen again? But Jesus was dead. It just didn’t seem possible that Jesus could be resurrected. Who could call Jesus out of the tomb?

Now back in Bethany, the Sabbath had begun. They wanted to return to the tomb, to take care of Jesus’ body as they would have, if they had had time. But that would have to wait until after the Sabbath.

In the meantime, the Temple leaders decided that the priority of the institution, and maintaining their authority and honor superseded that of keeping to the traditions of Sabbath observance that they themselves taught. They went to Pilate and asked for guards to seal the tomb until after the third day. Pilate granted their request, sending a group of soldiers with them, and they ensured that the tomb would be secure.

On the First Day, as the first morning twilight began to pierce through the darkness, Mary and the other Mary quickly exited where they were staying to make their way back to the tomb. Neither had slept. As the first rays of dawn began to rise up over the horizon, they arrived at the tomb. They saw that a large group of Roman soldiers had sprouted next to the tomb, sometime during their absence.

Before they could try to make sense of it, an extremely bright light, much brighter than the sun, seemed to zip down from the still-dark sky, strike next to the stone covering the tomb, and in that same instant a great earthquake shook the ground. From the location where the light struck, a figure emerged and quickly rolled away the stone and sat on it.

Mary and Mary quickly grabbed onto some olive trees that were nearby to keep from falling to the ground. The soldiers were not quite so fortunate, as they tried to steady themselves against the rocks and against one another. But like dominoes, they tumbled to the ground and remained stunned.

The figure on the stone called out to the women, “Don’t be afraid. I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He isn’t here, because he’s been raised from the dead, just as he said. Come, see the place where they laid him.”[5]

Could it be true? They quickly glanced at one another. With fear but also a glimmer of hope, they cautiously approached the now-open entry to the tomb. And then they went in. As their eyes adjusted to the dimmer light, they searched for Jesus’ body. On Friday they witnessed him being placed inside. And yet they saw nothing coming out of the tomb just now.[6] They had seen the soldiers outside. Why would they be here if the body had somehow been moved the day prior?

Jesus’ body was not inside. How could that be? It doesn’t make any sense. Except… What Jesus had said was true, and what this being outside said is also true, confirming what Jesus said.

They exited the tomb. The being spoke to the women once more. “Now hurry, go and tell his disciples, ‘He’s been raised from the dead. He’s going on ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there.’ I’ve given the message to you.”[7]

Mary and Mary were given the first message of the resurrection and commissioned to relay the message to all the other disciples! They looked at one another again, and no words had to be spoken. With great excitement but also great fear, they began to run. They were about to head into full sprint, something they hadn’t done since they were little girls. That’s when they suddenly realized they were about to run into a man who seemed to appear out of nowhere. They tried to put on the brakes. They stumbled around. They grabbed onto each other to keep from falling headfirst to the ground.

“Greetings!” said the man they had almost run into.

The two women immediately recognized the voice and having had a chance to look into his face, they realized it was Jesus! It was true. Jesus was raised from the dead. Jesus is alive! Now they fell to the ground and took hold of Jesus’ feet. They worshiped him.

The military power and might of Rome could not keep Jesus in the tomb. In fact, his resurrection has turned the soldiers, who were there to keep Jesus in the tomb, almost like dead men. All of the plotting by the temple and religious authorities to keep Jesus shamed through death had been turned upside down. Now it would be they who were shamed for their treatment of Jesus and it was they who would have to find some way to explain their actions.

The political state might look to its ability to use violence and death, and the threat to use them, as the ultimate projection of its power and strength. Power and control are the world’s means of maintaining authority over its subjects. But Jesus’ resurrection is a reversal of the world’s systems. Jesus’ resurrection is victory over all the world’s domination systems. Jesus’ resurrection is vindication that his way and his kingdom is the only way to life.

Jesus’ way and his kingdom is a reversal: instead of amassing power, it gives it away. Instead of looking out primarily for oneself, it looks out for the well-being of all. Instead of force and compulsion, freedom. Instead of coercion, persuasion. Instead of violence and its promotion, peace and its tools. Instead of death and the tools of death, life. Instead of fear; hope, love and compassion.

Then Jesus said to the two women, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers and sisters to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”[8]

They resumed their running. It was as if supernatural strength and endurance carried them on wings.  Praising God, rejoicing, and laughing with excitement, they sprinted toward the place where they knew the other disciples were still hiding, cowering in grief and fear.

The rest of the story is, in part, found with us. We are the beneficiaries and inheritors of that original message, entrusted to two Marys.

Jesus is alive! Christ is risen!

May the God who creates, raise us to new life again.

May the God who accepts, raise our capacity for love and compassion.

May the God who unsettles, raise our discomfort with the ways of this world.

---

[1] Most of the imagined narrative given here is based on Matthew’s account of Good Friday through Resurrection Day. Other accounts occasionally fill in a few details and some creative license has been taken to flesh out the narrative. However, I have done my best to stay close to the Matthean text while providing for continuity.

[2] Matthew 20:20-23.

[3] Traditionally, John 19:26-27, where “disciple whom he loved” is found is taken as referring to the disciple John. If that is the case, then it would mean that at least one male disciple remained near the cross. But there is debate as to whom the phrase refers to. It may be an editorial addition by the author of the gospel according to John (whose authorship we do not know) for this gospel’s own theological reasons. The Synoptics only mention women as remaining near the cross. Other individuals whom scholars suggest might be the “disciple whom Jesus loved” include Lazarus and John Mark. C.f., Who Was John the Apostle? The Beginner's Guide - OverviewBible (https://overviewbible.com/john-the-apostle/)

[4] Matthew 20:17-19. C.f., Borg and Crossan, The Last Week (chapter 4), discussion of the unnamed woman who anointed Jesus in Mark 14:3-9 where among the many women disciples who followed Jesus, this woman appears to have understood Jesus’ predictions of his suffering, death, and resurrection. Thus, it may be that other women disciples may have also had some degree of understanding that Jesus would be resurrected in some manner.

[5] Matthew 28:5b-6 (CEB)

[6] Matthew’s account comes closest to where any description of the actual event of the resurrection takes place. If Jesus’ body had appeared from the tomb, it should be found here. But it is not. The other gospel accounts only note that the tomb is already open and empty.

[7] Matthew 28:7 (CEB)

[8] Matthew 28:10 (CEB)