Sermon: The Eyes and Heart of Jesus

"Widow's Mite" by Tissot, James, 1836-1902

Lectionary: Proper 27(B)

Texts: 1 Kings 17:8-16; Psalm 146; Mark 12:38-44

Our gospel reading describes a widow who comes to the temple to place a couple of small copper or brass coins into a box whose contents would be added to the temple treasury. Some commentaries describe this box as having been made to accentuate the sounds of the coins as they dropped into the box. It would be difficult to not notice coins being dropped into the box. And even a small amount would not escape notice. For the woman to drop in so few coins could bring about looks of scorn and derision, and she likely would have felt shame and embarrassment.

Perhaps she tried to conceal her identity as she gave, or to do it as quietly as possible. That is possible, but the text omits any mention of how she arrived and how she gave. I think that she would have tried to not draw attention, but the fact that Jesus noticed and that he pointed it out to the disciples would likely mean that they saw and heard the widow.

This story is frequently offered as examples of what faithful discipleship looks like. It is also used as an example of faithful and sacrificial giving to God. I think they are valid interpretations, but like I often do, I propose a different interpretation that I think better fits the context of the surrounding texts.

The text immediately preceding the story of the widow and her coins is words of Jesus giving warning about the legal experts of his time. Jesus says, “Watch out for the legal experts. They like to walk around in long robes. They want to be greeted with honor in the markets. They long for places of honor in the synagogues and at banquets. They are the ones who cheat widows out of their homes, and to show off they say long prayers. They will be judged most harshly.” (Mark 12:38-40 CEB)

The individuals Jesus is warning against are the national leaders. They are legal and political leaders. They have high positions – they expect to be honored wherever they go. They dress accordingly so that they can be recognized. They are also religiously pious and go out of their way to declare their piety. Yet they are also avaricious and callous. Using their legal maneuvers, some of them may have found widows to be easy pickings. Jesus condemns those who flaunt their piety yet use their legal expertise to line their pockets with widows’ properties.

It is with this background that the rich, quite possibly an example of the legal experts Jesus warned against, appear at the temple. And the widow, perhaps one whose house had been lost to such a legal expert, also enters the scene. The rich give. The widow also gives. But the law does not require the widow to give. Rather, the law demands that orphans and widows be taken care of.

This scene is not primarily about giving, but about the failure of the rich to live up to the very law which they claim to piously follow.

The widow is not required to give, but she gives anyway. Why? Is it because of her faithfulness to God? Perhaps. But another perspective suggests that the teachings of these legal experts may be in play. Piety, regardless of wealth or social standing, was important to ancient people. Giving to God was a legitimate component of a pious life. It may be that giving was so emphasized that the poor felt obligated to give, even when they could not afford to do so.

It should be noted that the text does not have Jesus praising or condemning the widow’s act. Jesus simply sees and makes some factual comments. He does not provide an evaluation. Therefore, I think it is best to treat this as an observation and not turn it into an exemplary act.

When we continue to read past this story into the next couple of verses, the non-evaluation approach seems more appropriate.

“​As Jesus left the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Teacher, look! What awesome stones and buildings!”

Jesus responded, “Do you see these enormous buildings? Not even one stone will be left upon another. All will be demolished.” (Mark 13:1-2)

We do not know precisely when Mark’s text was written. Many place it before the destruction of Jerusalem. In which case these words of Jesus could be seen as prophecy about the future. Or it could be that by the time Mark’s text was being put together, the writing was on the wall regarding Jerusalem’s future.

Another possibility is that Jesus’ words are recalling Hebrew history, where Solomon’s temple was destroyed. A key reason for the destruction of the first temple was also because the nation’s leaders failed to provide justice and care to the widows and orphans. According to Jesus, the future of a nation that fails to take care of its most vulnerable is judgment and destruction.

In our reading from the Hebrew scriptures, 1 Kings 17, we read about another widow. This widow is said to be from Zarephath, near Sidon. Elijah came to her during an extended drought, to receive food and water from her. She, too, was on her last meager bit of sustenance, and she too, gave what she had, first to Elijah who was a representative of God.

This could be seen as another story about faithfulness to God through giving. And this could be a lens through which the story of the widow at the temple could be interpreted.

But once more, there is another way of interpreting the story of the widow of Zarephath. And this one comes straight from Jesus. In Luke 4, as Jesus begins his public ministry, he returns to Nazareth and declares his mission statement.

¹⁶ Jesus went to Nazareth, where he had been raised. On the Sabbath he went to the synagogue as he normally did and stood up to read. ¹⁷ The synagogue assistant gave him the scroll from the prophet Isaiah. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:

¹⁸ The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me.
He has sent me to preach good news to the poor,
to proclaim release to the prisoners
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to liberate the oppressed,

¹⁹ and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

²⁰ He rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the synagogue assistant, and sat down. Every eye in the synagogue was fixed on him. ²¹ He began to explain to them, “Today, this scripture has been fulfilled just as you heard it.”

²² Everyone was raving about Jesus, so impressed were they by the gracious words flowing from his lips. They said, “This is Joseph’s son, isn’t it?”

²³ Then Jesus said to them, “Undoubtedly, you will quote this saying to me: ‘Doctor, heal yourself. Do here in your hometown what we’ve heard you did in Capernaum.’” ²⁴ He said, “I assure you that no prophet is welcome in the prophet’s hometown. ²⁵ And I can assure you that there were many widows in Israel during Elijah’s time, when it didn’t rain for three and a half years and there was a great food shortage in the land. ²⁶ Yet Elijah was sent to none of them but only to a widow in the city of Zarephath in the region of Sidon. (Luke 4:16-26)

First point to note is that Jesus’ mission is to be good news to the poor, the prisoners, to the blind, and the oppressed. What is missing is any notion of acquiring power, conquering, and ruling.

Second, when the people of his hometown expressed doubt about Jesus, Jesus’ response included a mention of the widow of Zarephath. Jesus does not say anything about the widow’s sacrificial giving. Rather, the point here seems to be about who God chose to work through to provide his prophet, Elijah, with support and sustenance. The point is also about who Jesus is sent to offer the gospel.

It wasn’t Elijah’s own people, the Israelites. It was, instead, a foreigner, a Canaanite. It was not someone who had the proper religious identity or beliefs. The widow was not a follower of Isarel’s God. But Elijah’s God, the God of Israel, chose a Canaanite, who worshiped some other god, to care for Elijah.

The same could and should be said of our God. Our God is not limited to working with and for those who profess the right name and those who claim to possess proper beliefs. Our God is not limited by race, ethnicity, language, culture or borders. God will choose to work with whomever is open and receptive to the mission of love and compassion for others. On the other hand, those who falsely claim piety to be seen and to gain human approval “will be judged most harshly”, in Jesus’ own words.

I see echoes between then and now in the depictions of human powers found in the Bible and what we see in our present day. We read about Jesus observing these powers at play in his time. We read what God values and desires to see among people. We, as the church, and therefore an embodiment of Christ in the world, have an obligation and responsibility to continue to see the world as Jesus saw it and to continue his mission of bringing justice and restoration to all peoples.

In closing and as our prayer, I will recite Psalm 146, which I see as an appropriate summary for today’s message.

¹ Praise the LORD!
Let my whole being praise the LORD!
² I will praise the LORD with all my life;
I will sing praises to my God as long as I live.
³ Don’t trust leaders;
don’t trust any human beings—
there’s no saving help with them!
⁴ Their breath leaves them,
then they go back to the ground.
On that very same day, their plans die too.
⁵ The person whose help is the God of Jacob—
the person whose hope rests on the LORD their God—
is truly happy!
⁶ God: the maker of heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that is in them,
God: who is faithful forever,
⁷ who gives justice to people who are oppressed,
who gives bread to people who are starving!
The LORD: who frees prisoners.
⁸ The LORD: who makes the blind see.
The LORD: who straightens up those who are bent low.
The LORD: who loves the righteous.
⁹ The LORD: who protects immigrants,
who helps orphans and widows,
but who makes the way of the wicked twist and turn!
¹⁰ The LORD will rule forever!
Zion, your God will rule from one generation to the next!
Praise the LORD!

Sermon: Struggling with Hope

Lectionary: Proper 25(B)
Texts: Jeremiah 31:7-9; Psalm 126; Hebrews 7:23-28

A Prophetic Word of Hope

The Southern kingdom of Israel, Judah, was steadily falling to the Babylonian armies. With each defeat, the victors would send a selection of the defeated populace to Babylon as captives. Those who had little value to the Babylonians were left to eke out a meager existence while tending to the land where they were left.

Our first reading, taken from Jeremiah, was written sometime during this portion of Judah’s history. It is part of an oracle of hope, given by God, to the people who were experiencing the destruction and desolation of their land.

For ancient societies, there were two things that were vitally important: land and their gods. For the Israelites, the land was slowly being taken from them, and their God appeared powerless to prevent it. The future would have appeared utterly bleak and hopeless.

Into this void, God spoke through prophets, including Jeremiah. God told the people that their actions had caused this, and that they would suffer consequences, but they would not be completely abandoned and forgotten. God affirms that, after some time, God would work to bring the people back to their land.

A Hymn of Hope

The reading from the Psalms seems to have been composed after the return from exile, when at least some of the people have returned to their land and Jerusalem had seen some reconstruction.

There is joy at the return and what God has done for them. Yet there is a sense that they are still facing an uncertain future. There is still a call from the people to God to continue to improve their condition and petitions that their work toward reconstruction and restoration will not be in vain.

A Sermon of Hope

Early Christians Losing Hope

Now we jump ahead many centuries and arrive somewhere between the mid and late first century in the Common Era. It’s now been a few to several decades since the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus.

This new sect of Judaism, because that’s what it was, was establishing communities around the major centers of the Roman empire. They had a sense of urgency, because Jesus was returning soon to finish what had been started.

But then, the years passed. Many of the disciples who had been closest with Jesus and had been the founders of this movement had died in one manner or another. There were sporadic conflicts with the Romans. There were ongoing differences with other forms of Judaism. The expectations and hope for the future return of Jesus and the establishment of the kingdom of God had not yet come to pass. The light began to dim and fade away.

At least for some of these followers of Jesus, it seemed easier to drift away and avoid any kind of conflict. For others, returning to practice more of the accepted traditions of Judaism would allow them to exist more peaceably with other Jews and the Romans would recognize them as licit Jews, practicing a state-approved form of religion.

It is to this situation to which someone speaks a sermon that we now have in the Christian scriptures as the book of Hebrews.

Unknown Provenance of Hebrews

Some English Bible translations might include “The Epistle (or Letter) to” the Hebrews in the title, but the best scholarly consensus is that this work does not contain any literary features that would mark it as a letter. Furthermore, “Hebrews” itself was added by an editor due to the very Jewish content of the work. No one knows who might have given the sermon nor the specific audience that would have heard it first.

You might have heard the idea that this work was written by Paul. But virtually no contemporary biblical scholar accepts Pauline authorship. Even in the early church, its authorship was anonymous. If one were to try to assign authorship, a couple leading candidates today include Apollos and Priscilla, with some circumstantial, but strong evidence pointing toward Priscilla.

The early church, despite its lack of strong provenance and authorship, found the sermon valuable that it was included in the collection of works that would eventually become the Christian canon.

The Hope in Hebrews

The thrust of the sermon is that Jesus is the ultimate messenger, better than prophets and even angelic messengers. Jesus is better than human priests, because, where human priests must offer regular sacrifice for their sins and they die, Jesus is without sin and he is a priest forever. Whereas human priests perform their duties in a sanctuary that is only a shadow, Jesus is the ultimate high priest who performs his duties in heaven, which is the perfect sanctuary, in the very presence of God.

If this work we call Hebrews was originally presented prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, it would have been intended to encourage the audience to remain faithful to the way of Christ, not the way mediated by human priests. The themes in Hebrews highlight the superiority of Christ over all other ways of approaching God.

If the work was presented after the fall of Jerusalem, it could have been spoken or written as a way of explaining why the Temple fell and how one might now look upon the priestly ministry that was part of being a Jew. It would have provided hope to the Christ-following sect of Jews that the real high priest and temple were no longer to be found on earth, but in heaven.

Both potential explanations offer reasons for why the early church found Hebrews valuable. It offers one of the most distinctive and precise Christologies found in scripture. It explains the superiority of Christ over all other powers and entities. And it explains why worship and religious service is better when they are not tied down to a specific location, such as a temple.

Caution When Interpreting Hebrews

But the interpretive history of Hebrews also contains dark moments. Because its basic argument is “Jesus is better than everything else,” it has led to the idea that Christianity replaces Judaism, and therefore, it can lead to the idea Jews are not as good as Christians. And then you can see how that reasoning can further lead to very dark places.

To prevent that kind of dark logic, we need to understand a few things about Hebrews.

First, it addressed an audience who were already long-time followers of Christ. It was not a message to a general audience nor one that was trying to persuade non-Christians of the superiority of Christianity. It was meant to persuade already-Christians that they should endure and hold on, and not give up hope in Christ.

Second, when the situation is dire, as it may have been with the Hebrews audience, stronger language and what could be seen as divisive language might be employed to exhort the listener. Outside of religious settings, we can see this tactic employed in other areas. An example might be a business CEO who uses strong rhetoric to motivate and inspire employees to go after the competition, or to reassure them that their products are superior.

A final point to consider is that whoever was the original speaker or author of this sermon probably had no idea it would be recorded to be read for the next two millennia. If they were aware that it would become part of a permanent collection, and had they known that it might be misinterpreted and misused, they might have used different words.

Returning to the three readings for today, each of them has hope as the thread that runs through them. For one, it is clinging to a word of hope when facing what appears to be literal existential threats. For another, it is experiencing improvements, yet still hoping for more. And for another, it is staying true to hope when expectations have not been met and the grass looks greener on the other side of the fence.

Struggling to Apprehend Hope

I really struggle with the idea of hope, because it can easily devolve into wishful thinking or naïve optimism. On the other hand, hope in God can likewise be difficult. How does one hope in a being or the being’s words when that being is seemingly absent from the world’s affairs? When we observe the disasters and cataclysms, both natural and human-caused, when we see the strife and violence and death that is everywhere, and evil seems to reign, and God is absent… can we have hope in what God has claimed?

I wish I could give you an answer to these deep questions. I wish I could have even a start of an answer for myself. But these are questions that have troubled theologians and philosophers for a very long time with no definitive answers.

Christ’s Example; Our Actions to Invite Hope

Instead, what I want to direct your thoughts to is back to Christ. We believe that Jesus Christ, through his life, ministry, and death, demonstrated what God is like. Jesus exemplified God’s love so that we humans could comprehend it.

Jesus’ own ministry was not grand or that far reaching. What he did was do and say things that uplifted people that he encountered in his daily life and travels about a limited geography.  Jesus didn’t offer grand answers to philosophical questions. But he saw every individual as a valuable person, created in God’s image. Jesus built a small community around him to continue his methods of offering hope and love.

Maybe that’s what it means to have hope and share hope. Maybe hope is found in doing things that matter to our neighbors. Maybe hope is knowing that we matter to someone. Maybe hope is knowing that our very presence has value. And maybe to love someone is to help them learn to accept that they too, have value and that they matter to us.

God says that we are loved and valued, but if we are the body of Christ, then doesn’t it make sense that how we love and value those among us might be the way we communally experience the hope of the kingdom of God as it grows among us?

Sermon: The Kingdom of God and Children

Lectionary: Proper 22(B) 
Text: Mark 10:2-16

Jesus Welcomes the Children

Rather than speaking specifically on the text that was read, I will be reading extended selections from Mark 8:31 through 10:45 today. Today’s reading is a part of this extended section. The reading selections will be broken up with some comments after each.

This section of Mark’s account is this gospel’s narrative of Jesus’ final journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, where Jesus will be crucified. As such, the Passion is the background and the foundation on which this entire section is to be interpreted.

If I was speaking each Sunday from September through October, this survey of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem would be divided among seven Sundays. There are repetitions of key thematic elements that occur in this narrative, that is difficult to see when only focusing on a single Sunday’s lectionary reading. To highlight those repetitions and gain insight into this gospel’s key themes, I am taking a 30,000 feet overview of the text today.

The text I read is from the Common English Bible translation.

8:31 Then Jesus began to teach his disciples: “The Human One^[a] must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and the legal experts, and be killed, and then, after three days, rise from the dead.” ³² He said this plainly. But Peter took hold of Jesus and, scolding him, began to correct him. ³³ Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, then sternly corrected Peter: “Get behind me, Satan. You are not thinking God’s thoughts but human thoughts.”

As Jesus begins his journey toward Jerusalem, we see several major thematic elements highlighted. These include his crucifixion and resurrection, the dichotomy between the ways of God’s kingdom vs. the ways of worldly power, and how there is misunderstandings even among those of Jesus’ inner circle. Perhaps there are lessons for present-day Christians among these themes.

The next story is Jesus’ transfiguration.

9:2 Six days later Jesus took Peter, James, and John, and brought them to the top of a very high mountain where they were alone. He was transformed in front of them, ³ and his clothes were amazingly bright, brighter than if they had been bleached white.

The glory of Jesus and his identity is confirmed by a voice from heaven. The disciples see the glory and they, especially Peter, are convinced this is the kingdom of God. But the vision fades and they return to the world as it is. Once more, is there a lesson for us here?

As Jesus and three disciples descend the mountain and return to among the people, they are immediately thrown into a tense situation.

9:14 When Jesus, Peter, James, and John approached the other disciples, they saw a large crowd surrounding them and l egal experts arguing with them. ¹⁵ Suddenly the whole crowd caught sight of Jesus. They ran to greet him, overcome with excitement. ¹⁶ Jesus asked them, “What are you arguing about?”

¹⁷ Someone from the crowd responded, “Teacher, I brought my son to you, since he has a spirit that doesn’t allow him to speak. ¹⁸ Wherever it overpowers him, it throws him into a fit. He foams at the mouth, grinds his teeth, and stiffens up. So I spoke to your disciples to see if they could throw it out, but they couldn’t.”

9:25 Noticing that the crowd had surged together, Jesus spoke harshly to the unclean spirit, “Mute and deaf spirit, I command you to come out of him and never enter him again.” ²⁶ After screaming and shaking the boy horribly, the spirit came out. The boy seemed to be dead; in fact, several people said that he had died. ²⁷ But Jesus took his hand, lifted him up, and he arose.

For some unstated reason, the legal experts are arguing with the disciples that remained below. Perhaps they were pointing out the ineffectiveness of the disciples in treating the boy’s condition. Here we see the thematic element of conflict between Jesus, his works, and those who see Jesus as a threat to traditional forms of order and power.

We also see arise the thematic element of a child and what children represent. Here we witness the boy as an innocent victim, the cause of his condition is unstated and frankly, it shouldn’t matter. The child is oppressed, and Jesus restores him to wholeness.

Continuing, Jesus reaffirms the reason for his journey to Jerusalem. It is to demonstrate that the ways of human power is opposed to God’s kingdom.

9:30 From there Jesus and his followers went through Galilee, but he didn’t want anyone to know it. ³¹ This was because he was teaching his disciples, “The Human One^[e] will be delivered into human hands. They will kill him. Three days after he is killed he will rise up.”

9:33 They entered Capernaum. When they had come into a house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about during the journey?” ³⁴ They didn’t respond, since on the way they had been debating with each other about who was the greatest. ³⁵ He sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them, “Whoever wants to be first must be least of all and the servant of all.” ³⁶ Jesus reached for a little child, placed him among the Twelve, and embraced him. Then he said, ³⁷ “Whoever welcomes one of these children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me isn’t actually welcoming me but rather the one who sent me.”

And we see repeated themes. The disciples are arguing about power in the kingdom. And we see the theme of the child. The kingdom of God turns upside down the human notions of power. Our understanding and practice of power is “power over.” Those who have the most power wield control over others or use the promise and delegation of power to keep underlings in their thrall. But in the kingdom of God power is earned by serving, by letting go of the need to control, and by being hospitable with no expectations of reciprocity.

The next set of texts were read last week. Here are a couple of verses to remind us.

9:38 John said to Jesus, “Teacher, we saw someone throwing demons out in your name, and we tried to stop him because he wasn’t following us.”

9:42 “As for whoever causes these little ones who believe in me to trip and fall into sin, it would be better for them to have a huge stone hung around their necks and to be thrown into the lake.

The disciples want to control Jesus’ power. They want exclusive use of it. Jesus tells them that is not how God’s power works. And once more is raised the theme of children, or “little ones” here – those who have no power in the worldly sense. They are the ones who are most valuable to the kingdom of God.

Next we come to today’s reading. Here are a few verses to remind us of the reading.

10:2 Some Pharisees came and, trying to test him, they asked, “Does the Law allow a man to divorce his wife?”

10:13 People were bringing children to Jesus so that he would bless them. But the disciples scolded them. ¹⁴ When Jesus saw this, he grew angry and said to them, “Allow the children to come to me. Don’t forbid them, because God’s kingdom belongs to people like these children. ¹⁵ I assure you that whoever doesn’t welcome God’s kingdom like a child will never enter it.” ¹⁶ Then he hugged the children and blessed them.

There is plenty of interesting details about the test that was posed to Jesus, but for now, the key point is that the questioners are asking Jesus to take sides in the ongoing debate between two or more groups at that time. Jesus refuses to do so and takes a third position by appealing to God’s original intention for loving relationships.

And again, the theme is brought up of children who exemplify the kind of individuals that will inherit the kingdom of God.

This is followed by the story of a man (sometimes identified as the rich ruler) who questions Jesus.

10:17 As Jesus continued down the road, a man ran up, knelt before him, and asked, “Good Teacher, what must I do to obtain eternal life?”

¹⁸ Jesus replied, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except the one God. ¹⁹ You know the commandments: Don’t commit murder. Don’t commit adultery. Don’t steal. Don’t give false testimony. Don’t cheat. Honor your father and mother.”^[k]

²⁰ “Teacher,” he responded, “I’ve kept all of these things since I was a boy.”

In Mark’s account, the questioner appears to be asking sincerely. Other gospel accounts turn him into a negative foil. There is much that could be said about each writer’s agenda and editing, but we will leave that for another time.

This is the first time reading this story where the man’s response, “I’ve kept all of these things since I was a boy,” struck me as fitting in with the broader theme of adults vs. children in this extended section. Jesus tells the man that he must give away his possessions, and the man’s response is to walk away in dismay because he is wealthy.

When I read this, what drew my attention was an unspoken question, “What happened to that child-like innocence where wealth didn’t matter to you? What only mattered was pleasing God.” And perhaps that is another lesson and question that we need to ask of ourselves as well.

The disciples are confused and dismayed. In response,

10:29 Jesus said, “I assure you that anyone who has left house, brothers, sisters, mother, father, children, or farms because of me and because of the good news ³⁰ will receive one hundred times as much now in this life—houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and farms (with harassment)—and in the coming age, eternal life. ³¹ But many who are first will be last. And many who are last will be first.”

Again we see the theme of the reversal of conventional (human) ideas of power.

As their journey continues, Jesus repeats the foundational theme of his death and resurrection.

10:32 Jesus and his disciples were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, with Jesus in the lead. The disciples were amazed while the others following behind were afraid. Taking the Twelve aside again, he told them what was about to happen to him. ³³ “Look!” he said. “We’re going up to Jerusalem. The Human One^[l] will be handed over to the chief priests and the legal experts. They will condemn him to death and hand him over to the Gentiles. ³⁴ They will ridicule him, spit on him, torture him, and kill him. After three days, he will rise up.”

The theme of confusion continues. The disciples still don’t understand.

10:35 James and John, Zebedee’s sons, came to Jesus and said, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”

³⁶ “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.

³⁷ They said, “Allow one of us to sit on your right and the other on your left when you enter your glory.”

³⁸ Jesus replied, “You don’t know what you’re asking! Can you drink the cup I drink or receive the baptism I receive?”

³⁹ “We can,” they answered.

Jesus said, “You will drink the cup I drink and receive the baptism I receive, ⁴⁰ but to sit at my right or left hand isn’t mine to give. It belongs to those for whom it has been prepared.”

⁴¹ Now when the other ten disciples heard about this, they became angry with James and John. ⁴² Jesus called them over and said, “You know that the ones who are considered the rulers by the Gentiles show off their authority over them and their high-ranking officials order them around. ⁴³ But that’s not the way it will be with you. Whoever wants to be great among you will be your servant. ⁴⁴ Whoever wants to be first among you will be the slave of all, ⁴⁵ for the Human One^[e] didn’t come to be served but rather to serve and to give his life to liberate many people.”

Following the world’s ideas of power – striving for it, acquiring it, and maintaining it – is diametrically opposed to God’s kingdom. It was human quest for power and control that led to humans murdering God.

If we want to live, to have life, and to be free, we must forsake the ways of worldly power and embrace serving and to empower others to live free from the clutches of the temptations of worldly power and wealth. We must become as vulnerable and powerless as children.

Christians, churches, and religious organizations are not immune to the appeal of worldly power. It doesn’t take, but a brief survey of the political structures around us, to see that.

Can we resist the temptation to utilize power for ourselves and to advance our own agendas through means of control, manipulation, and threats? Can we learn to rise above the methods of this world? And can we then be examples and witnesses of what it means to be fully whole and human? Through our service to those that the world often discards – the “little ones” and the “children” in the eyes of this world’s powers – can we restore dignity, agency, and hope to them? Are we prepared and willing to live out God’s kingdom in our world?

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/

 

 

Sermon: What Matters

Lectionary: Proper 6(B)

Text: 2 Corinthians 5:6-17

"Reconciliation"

Introduction

A criticism that is sometimes leveled against Christians is that “some people are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good.”[1] And if we take some of the texts found in the New Testament, we could certainly come up with a basis for focusing solely on salvation as a means of exiting this world and getting to heaven. Part of the reading this morning from 2 Corinthians 5 could be interpreted in that way.

I grew up in a theology that strongly emphasized the Second Coming and the saved would be taken up, after which this present world would be destroyed. Then this world would be recreated with the arrival of the New Jerusalem. In one sense then, I grew up with the idea that this world and everything in it was quite temporary and we shouldn’t spend too much effort “down here.”

But on the other hand, the denomination had a strong organizational branch dedicated to education, health and medicine, and disaster relief. It was very much concerned about growing its presence. But these were most always undertaken toward the ultimate goal of evangelism and “getting people saved.”

What I read in Paul’s words found in today’s reading is not either-or, but a both-and. In a nutshell, what Paul seems to be writing to the Corinthians is that what is done in this world matters now to the physical world, and what is done in this world matters in the future when Christ will take into account what was done.

It is on this latter point that Christians raise eyebrows because the idea of a judgment that evaluates works and then offers a payment based on that seems rather foreign and antithetical to the entire message of gospel and grace, especially when it is coming from Paul, the foremost champion of grace over law and works.

What is going on?

The Church at Corinth and Paul

First, it needs to be noted that the idea of a future judgment is not foreign to Paul’s theology. In addition to what we read today, we find Paul writing about a future judgment and associated rewards in Romans and in 1 Corinthians.[2] What is key to note about Paul’s theology of future judgment is that the same God who saves is also the judge. Rather than fearing judgment then, those who belong to Christ should know relief and assurance instead.

Next let us turn to the context of the church in Corinth. Many of you are already likely aware that the church in Corinth seems to have been plagued by one problem, issue, and conflict after another. At least based on the Pauline letters that we have left to us to ponder. There were conflicts of leadership: some preferred Peter, others Apollos, others Paul, and others eschewed any kind of human leadership and went straight to Christ.[3] There was within the church sexual immorality that even the pagan Romans frowned on.[4] Members were taking one another into Roman courts to bring and settle lawsuits.[5] There were conflicts over what one could eat or not eat.[6] There were rivalries over manifestations of spiritual gifts.[7] There were even conflicts involving the Communion meal.[8] Members of the church were judging one another and dividing into factions, each believing themselves to be better than the others.

One of the issues then may be related to an over-realized eschatology that some of the members may have come to believe. These thought that because they had been saved, the full realization of salvation had already come and that what they did in their physical bodies on the physical world no longer mattered.[9]

A second issue was that of authority. It seems that Paul’s authority as an apostle was being questioned. He did not act like teachers and authority figures were expected to behave. He did not demand to be supported, and instead supported himself. The church in Corinth saw this not as a sign of humble Christian behavior, but as a lack of power and authority and preferred others who acted more in line with their expectations.[10]

The Second Letter to the Corinthian Church

The First Epistle to the Corinthians addressed these issues and several others. But apparently the issues didn’t get resolved, because Paul had to write at least one more letter. Chapters 10 through 13 of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians is probably that letter. In these chapters, Paul again has to defend his authority as an apostle and rebuke the church at Corinth for their ongoing conflicts and behaviors unbecoming of Christ-followers.

And that brings us to the first seven chapters of the Second Epistle. (Several modern scholars theorize that the Second Epistle is an amalgamation of three separate letters that are found out of order from their chronologies.)[11] These seven chapters, the last of Paul’s letters that we have written to the church in Corinth, may be seen as a reconciliation letter. The conflict and issues at Corinth seem to have been finally resolved and Paul writes to explain himself and assure the Corinthians that he has not continued to be angry with them. Our reading today was taken from the middle of this material.

The Future Hope and Present Realities

In this subsection, Paul seems to be writing excitedly about the hope he and all Christians have in the promised future restoration of all things. Physical bodies might be weak, they wear out, and trouble can hit us at any time. Death is always a possibility. But none of that compares to the life that we already have in Christ and the resurrection that we will experience. What we see is temporal. All the troubles are temporary. What is promised beyond what we can currently see surpasses anything we can truly imagine. The visible, physical world weighs us down. We long for the life to come. We do not belong to this world.

At this point we might expect Paul to go all in on the future, the world and life to come. He does, indeed, long for it and hope for it. But he tells his audience that while this world might be temporary and our permanent home isn’t here, we should nevertheless live in the here and now as if it were our home and Christ was here with us. A precedent for this pattern may be found in Jeremiah 29 where the prophet writes to the exiles in Babylon to live in their land of exile, the land of sojourn, as though they were going to be there a long time. They were commanded to promote the welfare of their temporary home because their future was tied to the future of their temporary home.[12]

Both-And

If we heed Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians chapter 5, we will be better equipped to stay away from a couple ditches that we could find ourselves in. The first ditch is one where because all our hope is in the future, we come to believe that nothing in the present world matters. This is where Paul’s words about judgment and rewards based in what happens in the body are pertinent. How we treat the physical world and how we relate to creation and created beings matters to God and therefore, it should matter to us. The words about judgment is a call to critical self-reflection for individuals and for faith communities. If we claim to be followers of Christ, but ignore Christ’s concerns, are we really following Christ?

The second ditch is one where only the present is of concern. Especially since Christ’s return is so long in coming, and placing faith and hope in an event that could be another two-thousand years off seems esoteric and difficult to comprehend. It is much easier to try to make concrete, tangible efforts in the present and minimize or ignore what might or might not happen in the future as it is inconvenient to try to explain to those outside the church this very delayed hope.

The Ultimate Hope of Reconciliation

We need to go past today’s assigned reading, but when we do we can see that for Paul, ethical works done in the present was a means of bringing reconciliation. Starting with the last couple verses from the reading here is the rest of chapter 5.

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. (2 Corinthians 5:16-21 CEB)

Anyone can devote their lives to doing ethical work in this world and make a positive contribution and possibly a lasting difference. But for Christians, there is an even larger objective. It is the reconciliation of the world back to God. The hope of Christian faith is not simply a better world or eternal life, but a world and life reconciled back to the Creator so that we can all live together in peace and harmony, without fear.

Last week we read Paul’s words, “We also have faith, and so we also speak.” We heard about the importance of speaking about our faith. Today is a continuation of that conversation.

Paul’s theology is both-and. We must love this world, relate to it, and treat it as God does. We must begin to plant the seeds of God’s new creation within the world around us. We must tend to the sprouts and growth as they appear. But we must also point toward and speak about the hope that is found in the final reconciliation of the world to God. Our faith is not just in a glorified future, but in the power of God that is already recreating and restoring, who is working through our efforts to be Christ’s representatives in this world.

References

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

 

---

[1] Attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

[2] Romans 2:16; 14:10-11; 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.

[3] 1 Corinthians 1:10-12.

[4] 1 Corinthians 5.

[5] 1 Corinthians 6:1-8.

[6] 1 Corinthians 8.

[7] 1 Corinthians 12-14.

[8] 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

[9] Paul’s discussion of the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15 seems to be related to this.

[10] 1 Corinthians 4.

[11] (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003), Introduction to 2 Corinthians.

[12] Jeremiah 29:4-7.

Sermon: Mirepoix (Take Two)

Lectionary: Trinity Sunday (B)
Text: Psalm 29; Romans 8:12-17; John 3:1-17

Introduction

The sermon on bread pudding I gave here about seven years ago has clearly left an impression. Even if you don’t recall anything about the content of the sermon, most of you appreciate the bread pudding.

Eight years ago, Elise and I spent a week or so in New Orleans. About a month later, I preached a sermon at the Lutheran Church which prominently featured the topic of mirepoix.

Some of you may have heard the term before and might know what it means. The rest of you are going, “Now what is that?”

During our week in NOLA, we spent half of one of the days at the New Orleans School of Cooking, where Chef Kevin Belton demonstrated several recipes, including the bread pudding that many of you have enjoyed quite regularly over the past several years. Going over to the side of main dishes, he explained that the flavoring for Creole dishes comes from a combination of three key ingredients: two parts onion, one part green bell peppers, and one part celery.

At the end of the cooking demonstration, we were all given a lunch based on what he had cooked up. We were also given copies of all the recipes. In addition, at the market adjoining, there was a cookbook which he had recently authored and I purchased a copy which I had signed.

The “Holy Trinity”

During the class Kevin explained the history and significance of the three ingredients. The front part of his cookbook also dedicates a number of paragraphs to the topic. (You didn’t realize when you came to church this morning that you would be listening to an extended talk on Creole cuisine this morning, did you!? If I could deliver this sermon in any way I wanted, I would have chosen a demonstration kitchen so someone could cook while you listen so you could get all the sensory stimulations.)

Here I quote some relevant portions from that section:

When you are looking for the main flavor in New Orleans cooking, you won’t find it in a shaker, a container, a bottle or a box. The flavor is actually from the moisture that comes from cooking with onions, celery, and green bell pepper.

Classical French cooking relies on the use of a mire poix which is two parts onion, one part celery, and one part carrot. The problem was there were no carrots in south Louisiana 300 years ago. What we had here in New Orleans were plenty of bell peppers.

So the onions, celery, and bell peppers became the New World mire poix ingredient combination that is the foundation of most of New Orleans signature dishes… The industrious settlers and cooks in Louisiana incorporated the bell pepper out of necessity and created a unique flavor profile that is recognized as the only non-native American indigenous cuisine in the United States—Creole cooking…

Being a predominantly Catholic settlement, whether under French rule or Spanish, it is interesting to note that the same religion, Catholicism, guided the city for so many years under the concept of the Holy Trinity, the big three of the Catholics. The name stuck for the big three of New Orleans cuisine. It would be sacrilege to not cook with the traditional three: onions, celery, and bell pepper…

When you are going for true Creole flavor, be sure to invite the trinity into the pot. Onions, celery, and bell pepper, because you can’t cook New Orleans food without them.[1]

And there you now have the connection with Creole cuisine to Trinity Sunday. (And if you’re looking for a great New Orleans cookbook, I highly recommend Kevin Belton’s Big Flavors of New Orleans. The cooking school is also a great experience.)

Metaphors and Limitations

But back to the topic of the Trinity. If you search the web for “bad analogies for the Trinity”, you will find many examples, including probably the most common ones you’ve heard, including water, an egg, the sun, and more. And if I went ahead and used the onion, celery, and bell pepper as analogies for God the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, this analogy would also quickly end up in that bucket of bad analogies. The reason for is that they all fall into some kind of theological heresy that was condemned during the early centuries of Christianity.

With the caveat that all metaphors and analogies have limitations and shouldn’t be stretched too far, I offer the following.

God might be compared to mirepoix of Creole cooking. Mirepoix is the crucial combination of ingredients that define Creole cuisine. In a similar manner, there are crucial characteristics of God, that when any are missing, God ceases to be God. In the gospel account of John, some of these properties include life, light, and love. God is life; God is light; God is love. But life is not God; light is not God; and love is not God. Nor can we say that God the Father is Light, Jesus is Love, and the Holy Spirit is Life. Each one is all of the properties.

Returning to cooking, we observe that onions alone do not make Creole cuisine; nor does celery alone; and nor does bell pepper alone. All three must exist simultaneously for Creole cuisine to be Creole cuisine. There is a certain substance that defines Creole cuisine.

The traditional wording of the Nicene Creed includes the following:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made, being of one substance [italics mine] with the Father…[2]

From this we can interpolate that in orthodox Christian theology, God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are of one substance. However, each Being of this singular substance we call God, has chosen to manifest to humanity in different ways.

A single Creole mirepoix is the foundation for jambalaya, gumbo, etouffee, bisque, and more. The mirepoix is incorporated into various dishes to satisfy various needs. And perhaps we might see how God’s characteristics manifest through God’s three different Beings in a somewhat analogous manner to cooking to fulfill God’s needs and desires in God’s relationship with humanity and with all of creation.

At this point some might object that my analogy and illustration has reduced God to mere material substance. To that I might say that I could have just started and ended with, “The Trinity is an incomprehensible mystery. Three Beings. One God. The End.” But that would not have been very helpful. I would also observe that the Bible itself is God limiting God’s self and revelation to the limits of human language and cultures. And finally, I would add that Jesus himself is God limiting God’s self to the confines of human experience at a particular point in time and space.

Lest someone find my use of food and cooking analogy of God sacrilegious, I might point out that throughout the Bible, God uses imagery of food to portray the sacred. Among them, Communion or the Eucharist should be foremost in our Christian experience. We might not typically associate the adjective delicious with God, but should Jesus’ description of himself as the Bread of Life, or the communion bread as “this is my body” to remain purely utilitarian? Could we associate delicious with these metaphors? Sure, we eat to gain nutrients to allow us to survive, but wouldn’t we rather enjoy the food? Psalm 34:8 includes a phrase, “Taste and see how good the LORD is!” (CEB)

Conclusion

When we imagine what the Holy Spirit is about, I think that in many cases the Holy Spirit is reduced to quiet whispers that prod our conscience. We often think of the Holy Spirit as a still, small voice that offers us wisdom and points us in a direction.

But the doctrine of the Trinity tells us that the entire substance of God is within us. All of God’s creative power, all of God’s redemptive power, all of God’s care and concern for creation, all of God’s love for all of God’s children.

The God of storms that we heard from Psalm 29 – that God is within us through the Holy Spirit.

The God who sacrificed himself in the being of Jesus Christ – that God is within us to enable us to follow Christ’s example.

The passage from Romans chapter 8 continues and includes the following well-known texts:

³¹ If God is for us, who is against us? ³² He didn’t spare his own Son but gave him up for us all. Won’t he also freely give us all things with him? ³³ Who will bring a charge against God’s elect people? It is God who acquits them. ³⁴ Who is going to convict them? It is Christ Jesus who died, even more, who was raised, and who also is at God’s right side. It is Christ Jesus who also pleads our case for us… ³⁸ I’m convinced that nothing can separate us from God’s love in Christ Jesus our Lord: not death or life, not angels or rulers, not present things or future things, not powers ³⁹ or height or depth, or any other thing that is created.[3]

The doctrine of the Trinity tells us that the entirety of God is not only for us, but within us, empowering us to be God’s hands, feet, and voice in the world around us.

In the name of God who Creates,

In the name of God who Redeems,

And in the name of God who Empowers, Amen.

References

Belton, K. (2016). Kevin Belton's Big Flavors of New Orleans. Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith.

---

[1] (Belton, 2016, pp. 16-17)

[2] That the traditional wording of the Nicene Creeds might offer a historical theology of early Christianity that is at odds with modern Christian theology should be recognized.

[3] Romans 8:31b-34, 38-39 (CEB)