Sermon: Awake in Hope

Lectionary: Advent 1(B)

Texts

• Isaiah 64:1-9
• Psalm 80:1-7, 17-19
• 1 Corinthians 1:3-9
• Mark 13:24-37

Introduction

Back in October and November, my social media feeds were inundated with advertising for all sorts of Advent calendars, for kids to adults, for humans and pets. Traditional chocolate ones, cookies, tea, coffee, wine, beer, liquor, cosmetics, socks, candles, dog treats, cat treats, and probably dozens and hundreds more that I haven’t seen. Now that we are in December, all those ads have stopped. Because clearly, if you haven’t gotten your Advent calendar already, it’s too late.

The Advent season is a time for waiting and preparing? But for what, or whom, really? The popular mind and the Advent calendar market at least gets the waiting and counting down part of Advent.

In the broader world, the timeframe occupied by Advent is a time of preparing for Christmas. And we do that through decorating, cleaning, shopping, cooking, baking, traveling, and so on to create a memorable and meaningful Christmas celebration. Is that the purpose of Advent – to prepare for the best celebratory event we can manage?

Perhaps Advent is a time to prepare and wait for Christ? But what exactly does that mean? Are we again preparing to celebrate the remembrance of the arrival of baby Jesus? The activities of Advent lead toward the remembrance and celebration of Christmas, so its primary focus might appear to be that.

The theme for today, the first Sunday of Advent, is hope. What are we hoping for? What fulfillment of hope are we waiting for?

And finally, there is the admonition to “keep awake” in our gospel reading. In what way do waiting and keeping awake help explain Advent and hope?

Prayers of Lament and Deliverance

The reading from Isaiah and the reading from Psalms both contain words that look back to God’s powerful acts in the past and a longing, and even demands, for God to re-enact similar great works to bring about salvation in the present time. Both are literarily categorized as laments, and their liturgical function was quite likely as prayers. The lament in Isaiah was written in the context of the Babylonian exile of the southern tribe of Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The Psalm lament was most likely written in the context of the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel.

In light of destruction and devastation suffered by a community, these laments raise up cries for God to act like he did in their long-ago historical memories. Both question where God is and why he has allowed this destruction and suffering to come to his people. Although the Isaiah lament contains a brief mention of the people’s sin, both laments place most or all of the responsibility on God. Both end with call to God for him to act and restore and save his people. Although not explicitly stated in the texts, both laments end with an implied confidence and hope that God will act.

The gospel text in Mark was also formed and read within a community that was probably experiencing some degree of intermittent persecution and suffering from within their own Jewish community and outside from the Roman empire. They too, are longing for deliverance and salvation.

Our Context is Different

That is what makes this set of Advent readings difficult for us to understand. Even though we likely have difficulties and challenges, none of us are likely facing truly existential challenges. We have a life that is mostly comfortable, and challenges we face, we generally don’t have too much trouble handling.

I think that if we are truly honest, many of us really don’t need God’s intervention. We are content with how things are, and we don’t really need or want God to intervene and shake things up.

Yet in places around the world, people and communities are facing dire challenges to their very existence. Some are more well known and publicized than others. Ukraine, Israel, and Palestine are among a few that immediately come to mind. Much closer to home, we remember the very recent landslide and loss of life and property in Wrangell. Right here at home, even next door to where we are meeting today, Humanity in Progress exists only because there are those within our very community who find meeting their basic needs a challenge.

Deep within us, even though our immediate circumstances may be quite comfortable, we know that there is something wrong with this world. Even though there are enough resources to take care of everyone, the dominant powers are unable and unwilling to do what it takes to care for all. Many of us have bought into the philosophies and priorities of the dominant powers and, even if we don’t overtly recognize it, we subconsciously divide people into who we think are “more-deserving” and “less-deserving”.

Keeping Awake

Perhaps one part of incorporating “keep awake” into our lives this Advent is to become more intentional about how we view and judge the world around us. Throughout scripture God is described as not showing partiality and those who follow God are also to be impartial in their dealings with others.[1] Maybe we are the ones who need the “breaking through” of God into our lives to reveal our hypocrisies and correct our partialities.

Another element of “keeping awake” may be to reawaken us to the reality that disasters and suffering can easily befall any of us. What is our response when something terrible upends our lives? One line of thought, common in some circles, is to accept whatever happens stoically and even be thankful[2] because “all things work together for good for those who love God”.[3]

If you want to do that, great. That is your choice. But don’t if it is only because you were taught that is the “proper Christian response” to tragedy and suffering.

There are other responses that are acceptable and exemplified in scripture. Psalm 80, which we read, contains one such example.

Even though the Isaiah, Psalm, and Mark texts are in the context of community and existential challenges, our individual tragedies and misfortunes can feel existential. Just because the texts are communal doesn’t mean they cannot be read as expressing individual lament.

Praying a Lament

How might we pray a lament? Let’s read through Psalm 80 once again.

¹ Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel,
you who lead Joseph like a flock!
You who are enthroned upon the cherubim, shine forth
² before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh.
Stir up your might,
and come to save us!
³ Restore us, O God;
let your face shine, that we may be saved.

The prayer begins by reminding God of who God is, what God has promised, and demands that God act according to God’s character.

⁴ O LORD God of hosts,
how long will you be angry with your people’s prayers?
⁵ You have fed them with the bread of tears
and given them tears to drink in full measure.
⁶ You make us the scorn of our neighbors;
our enemies laugh among themselves.
⁷ Restore us, O God of hosts;
let your face shine, that we may be saved.

The prayer moves to a complaint. The complaint is that God’s inaction is the cause of God’s people’s suffering and God’s reputation to be sullied in the eyes of others.

This next section includes a large portion that was skipped by the lectionary editors, but it adds important context to the psalm.

⁸ You brought a vine out of Egypt;
you drove out the nations and planted it.
⁹ You cleared the ground for it;
it took deep root and filled the land.
¹⁰ The mountains were covered with its shade,
the mighty cedars with its branches;
¹¹ it sent out its branches to the sea
and its shoots to the River.
¹² Why then have you broken down its walls,
so that all who pass along the way pluck its fruit?
¹³ The boar from the forest ravages it,
and all that move in the field feed on it.
¹⁴ Turn again, O God of hosts;
look down from heaven and see;
have regard for this vine,
¹⁵ the stock that your right hand planted.
¹⁶ It has been burned with fire; it has been cut down;
may they perish at the rebuke of your countenance.

¹⁷ But let your hand be upon the one at your right hand,
the one whom you made strong for yourself.
¹⁸ Then we will never turn back from you;
give us life, and we will call on your name.
¹⁹ Restore us, O LORD God of hosts;
let your face shine, that we may be saved.[4]

Once again, the prayer reminds God of God’s early actions in caring for God’s people. And then it again accuses God of allowing destruction to come. It ends with a demand for God to act to restore and save.

The three parts of this lament each end with three refrains. They are similar but with small differences.

The first refrain is “Restore us, O God; let your face shine, that we may be saved.” The second refrain is similar, but changes the first line to “Restore us, O God of hosts.” The third refrain changes to “Restore us, O LORD God of hosts.” The development is from a generic “God” to “God of hosts” to the most personal “LORD God of hosts.” One might imagine the one praying moving from a lament that is within the boundaries of “proper theology”, to a developing anger that causes the prayer to start to break out from “theological boundaries”, to anguish and anger at seeming betrayal in which one’s personal and close friend has failed to act.

What this says to me is that when we are disappointed with God, it is acceptable to express our anger, rage, and disappointment. If as a community, there is something where we think God has failed to act appropriately, it is okay to step out of “proper theology” and express our feelings as a community toward God. God is not threatened by our feelings. If we sincerely believe God is as personal as our theology claims, if we sincerely believe God is as loving and caring as our theology claims, then we ought to be able to express our complaints and disappointments about God without fearing that somehow, we are violating proper boundaries.

Conclusion

If this season of Advent and reminders about waiting for God bring up memories and feelings of disappointment with God, this might be the time to allow them to be expressed. If you are facing challenges this Advent – it might be financial, it might be your health, it might be something family members are facing – it is okay to express your frustrations and anger, and demand that God act.

While we wait for Christ’s return, we are to keep awake. Depending on the season of our individual and communal lives, it might mean working to alleviate the sufferings around us. Or it might mean crying out to God to act. I believe that the key point is to remain engaged with God and God’s desires for the world. To fall asleep is to succumb to the ennui that we are powerless to make any difference, and that God too, is asleep and doesn’t care.

We are the embodiment of Christ in the world. As long as we are engaged both with the world and with God, we remain beacons of hope in the world. We keep hope awake that justice and righteousness will be restored.

---

[1] Among the texts: Deuteronomy 16:19, 2 Chronicles 19:7, Job 32:21, Matthew 22:16, Acts 10:35, Romans 2:11, James 2:1, 9 and 3:17.

[2] Ephesians 5:19-20.

[3] Romans 8:28.

[4] Psalm 80 (NRSVue).

Sermon: Don't Tame the Parable!

Lectionary: Proper 28(A) 

Texts: 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11; Matthew 25:14-30

Introduction

The words of a parable were read just a few moments ago. But what did you hear?

Did you hear a morality tale about the wise use of gifts and abilities that God gives to each person? Did you hear an admonition to not bury what you are given? Did you hear a children’s story?

The parable of the talents, as this selection is frequently called, is quite familiar to many of us. We know (or think we know) what it says, and we certainly have heard its interpretation repeated to us. But, as you might have already suspected, I will offer a couple of other possible interpretations of this parable.

Traditional Interpretation

First, however, we should hear a summary of what probably is the most common and traditional interpretation of the parable. It is not a bad interpretation nor is it wrong. But it may in fact be a more recent innovation.

The basic idea is that a man, allegorically identified as Jesus (or God) is going away for a long time. This idea fits in with the surrounding parables. However, it should be noted that these parables were arranged by the gospel writers with their own thematic purposes, so each parable quite possibly stood alone, apart from the others, when originally told.

The man calls his slaves (allegorically understood to be Jesus’ disciples) and gives “talents” to each one, each according to his ability (and here is why the talents are allegorically identified as abilities). They each get different amounts, and the two with the most go and double what they have. The third buries the single “talent” he is given. The master eventually returns, praises the first two for their faithfulness and diligence and invites them to do even more for him. The third however, it not only reprimanded but appears to be thrown out and suffers (allegorically understood as being thrown into hell and eternal punishment for his unfaithfulness).

Thus, the parable is interpreted as being about the proper behavior and activities of Christians while we wait for Jesus to return.

An Aside on “Talent”

With that summary, let us next look at the word that is central to the parable: talent. This word comes from the ancient Greek, talanton. From Greek it was adopted into Latin use and eventually makes its way into English.[1] It is not quite an exact transliteration, but it is similar enough that it could be understood to be one. In Greek it meant balance, weight, or a sum of money. These meanings carried over into Old English. By Middle English, however, the word began to convey such ideas as will, desire, and inclination of mind. It is around the mid-15^th century that the word begins to be seen referring to a person’s abilities and by the 17^th century this seems to be the most commonly understood meaning. Ironically, this idea that talent refers to abilities seems to come from the parable of the talents! So, it seems that modern readers of the parable are inserting a meaning of the word fabricated from the parable back into the parable.

We don’t know precisely how much an ancient talent was worth, but it was seen as an immense sum of money. Some commentaries suggest a single talent was equal to about 20-years pay for an ordinary person. The slave that received five talents received something like five to ten million dollars in today’s U.S. currency. And over the course of his master’s absence, he doubled that amount.

Another Interpretation

We will return to that vast sum of money in a little bit, but next I want to look at the third slave’s response to his master’s return. Here is what he said,

Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not scatter, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’[2]

Is the third slave stating what is true about the master, or is it just his perception of the master? Another possible interpretation of the parable is based on each slave’s perception of his master.[3],[4] In this interpretation, still an allegorical one, an individuals’ perception of God shapes their attitude and behavior toward God. The first two slaves saw the master as generous and kind, and so when entrusted with a huge sum of money, they were not afraid to take huge risks to double the amount given. On the other hand, the third slave saw the master as harsh, and was afraid of him. So, out of fear, the third slave made certain that the principal would not be lost. After all, taking a risk and using the money in ventures involves risk to the principal. The parable becomes a moral tale about being courageous and not succumbing to fear.

A Third Interpretation

What if, instead, the third slave’s statement about the master reflected reality? The parallel section in Luke’s gospel offers intriguing support for the idea that the master was indeed harsh and cruel. Two sentences are of particular interest. The first is found near the beginning, the second at the end. After the master (or nobleman in Luke) goes away, and in Luke, the nobleman goes away to receive authority to rule over the country. The text reads,

But the citizens of his country hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us.’[5]

Nothing else is mentioned in the Lucan parable about these citizens that tried to prevent the nobleman from receiving authority until the end. At the very end these citizens suddenly return to the parable as it concludes,

But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to rule over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence.[6]

Traditionally (in allegorical fashion), this has been explained as enemies of Jesus who hate him and try to prevent his return.

Where the Master is Evil

But what if, in the parable as it was initially told, the master and the nobleman were in fact seen as evil? How might that change how we interpret and hear it? Wait! I can hear the protests. This would go against centuries of interpretations, where the master is Jesus/God and the slaves are Jesus’ followers.

Dr. Levine, in her book, Short Stories by Jesus, explains how a strong tendency has existed to domesticate the parables and make them more palatable, easy, and comfortable to hear. She shows that even the gospel writers did this. They tried to control the meaning of the parables from the very beginning of Christian history. She writes that if we walk away from a reading of the parable feeling comfortable, or at least not too challenged, we have probably misread and misinterpreted it.[7]

Religion has been defined as designed to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. We do well to think of the parables of Jesus as doing the afflicting. Therefore, if we hear a parable and think, “I really like that” or, worse, fail to take any challenge, we are not listening well enough.[8]

Looking for the Surprise in a Parable

Levine writes that one of the keys to interpreting a parable is to see what is surprising and unexpected in the story. This is where we return to the vast sum of money that is found in today’s parable text.

Jesus tells this parable to an audience, most who would be living day-to-day with what they have. Few would have any coins stored up, let alone be landowners. Many would know of losing land and wealth to the wealthy who could get away with unscrupulousness and unchecked greed. The audience does not have any positive associations toward the wealthy and their wealth.

When the audience hears about the master and the ludicrous amount of his wealth that he divides to his slaves, I hear the audience booing and hissing. And when it is told that the two slaves doubled the money handed to them, the audience may be yelling and asking, “On whose backs?!”

When the third slave refuses to use the funds given to him and states what he knows about the master, I hear cheering and clapping. But then when he is thrown out, the audience likely becomes quiet, as their lot is that of the third slave.

Lest you somehow think I’m making this up and is just one person’s interpretation, this line of interpreting is found in commentaries and in multiple sermons.

Parable vs. Allegory

Dr. Levine also writes that a parable should not need allegorical keys for proper interpretation; rather, that all that is needed for interpretation is found in the parable itself, it hearers, and what they know and experience. Unfortunately for us, that means we have to do some context digging to uncover those things that were understood without being stated explicitly. I’ve tried to do some of that today.

This third interpretation given today requires no allegorical keys. The details in the parable are exaggerated, but it is the lived experience of its audience.

If the third slave is the supposed “hero” of the parable, what does that mean? Perhaps one thing the parable is stating is what is obvious through history: the rich get richer, the poor are always exploited, and that the system is always rigged to favor those in power staying in power.

Perhaps another interpretive point is found around the actions of the third slave. He was in the system, but when given the opportunity to gain wealth, he refused to participate and instead of remaining quiet, he told the truth about the system and its participants. A conclusion around this point might be that a whistleblower is rarely rewarded and often suffers negative consequences of social connections, relationships, livelihood, and possessions.

Conclusion (of Sorts)

That is the parable. There is no “lesson to be learned” or “lesson to be applied.” Rather, it is a reflection on the realities of the world. Its purpose is for its hearers to think about how each might respond. If for some ridiculous fortune you are in the position of the master, what would you do? If you are one of the slaves being pressured to participate in the system, what is your response? If you reject the system and are thrown out, what is your response? If you see people who stand up against the systems and powers of this world and suffer consequences as a result, what is your response?

If we must hear an interpretation that feels like the parable has a satisfying conclusion, then by bringing in allegory again, the third slave can be likened to Jesus, who stood up to the systems of his day and who suffered and was crucified outside the city (c.f., “the outer darkness”).

But perhaps we should keep the allegory away. I leave you with one more sentence from Dr. Levine.

We might be better off thinking less about what they “mean” and more about what they can “do”: remind, provoke, refine, confront, disturb…[9]

In the name of God who is Story,

In the name of God who is Storyteller,

And in the name of God who provokes, confronts, and disturbs…

Bibliography

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

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

Hoare, G. M. (2008, November 16). Parable of the Talents - sermon document - All Saints’ Episcopal Church. Atlanta, GA, USA.

James, T. G. (2022, October 9). Throw Him Into the Outer Darkness . Retrieved from Washington Street United Methodist Church: https://wsumc.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Throw-Him-Into-the-Outer-Darkness.pdf

Levine, A.-J. (2014). Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. HarperCollins Publishers.

Oxford English Dictionary. (1910, revised 2023). Oxford English Dictionary - talent. Retrieved from Oxford English Dictionary: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/talent_n?tl=true

Reid, L. (2020, November 14). Unraveling a Parable. Retrieved from St. Aidan's in the Beach: https://www.staidansinthebeach.com/blog/unraveling-a-parable

Thomas, D. (2020, November 8). The Good Kind of Worthless. Retrieved from Journey with Jesus: https://www.journeywithjesus.net/essays/2814-the-good-kind-of-worthless

 

 

---

[1] (Oxford English Dictionary, 1910, revised 2023)

[2] Matthew 25:24-25 (NRSVue)

[3] (Feasting on the Word: preaching the revised common lectionary, 2011, p. Kindle location approximately 10331)

[4] (Reid, 2020)

[5] Luke 19:14

[6] Luke 19:27

[7] (Levine, 2014)

[8] (Levine, 2014, p. 3)

[9] (Levine, 2014, p. 4)

Sermon: Reaffirming Hope

Lectionary: Proper 27(A)

Texts: 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

Introduction

Ordinary Time. That is the portion of the liturgical calendar that we have been in since June. The anticipation and celebration of Advent and Christmas is long past. The period of Lent, the horrors and Holy Week, and the joy of Easter are now distant memories. The power of the Spirit given at Pentecost might seem to be just barely holding us together, getting us from one week to the next. The humdrum of everyday routines and the regular cycle of the passing of seasons keep us engaged and busy. Yet it seems like it often becomes almost unthinking rote actions that we perform. Even the liturgical calendar, with its reminders of Christian history and life, might be just another routine that we move through year after year.

Have you realized that the first Sunday of Advent returns in just three weeks? When we think about Advent, it is almost always in association with Christmas. But Advent is a season that looks not only to the first Christmas, but also to the future return of Christ. These last few Sundays of the church year contain readings that bring us full circle from the first Advent to the anticipated second.

Second Advent and the Rapture

The Second Advent, or the Second Coming, of Jesus Christ, even if the general belief is nearly universally accepted by Christians, there is broad range of emphasis that is placed on it and how often you might hear it preached. There is also a huge diversity of specific beliefs, ideas, and details about it. The Second Advent has been the source of date setting for Jesus’ return, doomsday cults, dispensational theology and the Left Behind series, all manner of prophetic interpretations, and strong influences on national and international politics. It is not a benign doctrine. What someone or a group of people believes about the return of Jesus does have effects that go beyond their immediate circle, and they can be wide-ranging.

The text for today that is found in 1 Thessalonians, specifically 4:17, is where the doctrine of the rapture finds its origins. The general doctrine of the rapture should not be controversial. The hymns I chose for today all refer to it in some way.[1] But when “rapture” is mentioned among Christians today, what comes first and foremost to mind is a specific rapture doctrine that finds its speculation and novelization in the Left Behind series. (For clarity’s sake it should be noted that the Presbyterian Church (USA) rejects dispensational theology and its applications, including the kind of rapture scenarios found in Left Behind.[2])

There are many other variations on views of the rapture. Historically, most of the views are quite recent, with many of the variations appearing in the 19^th century or just before. These years, with modernist philosophy coming of age, with industrialization and technological advancements, but also with increasingly deadly conflicts, brought about increasing interest in the theological study of the end times. With pessimism that Christianity could actually change the entire world, and with the world seeming to go from bad to worse, many prophetic and apocalyptic texts seemed to have direct and literal applicability to the times that were being seen and experienced.

I should add here that my own personal history includes many years in a church denomination that arose from such an apocalyptic reading and creative interpretations of prophetic texts. We did not believe in dispensationalist theology, but we had our own unique spins on the concepts of the millennium, tribulation, resurrection of the dead, and judgment. We had almost a checklist of when, what, and how things were to happen leading up to the return of Christ. Granted we didn’t know the exact time, but there was a sequence of events that preceded the Second Coming. Although this was quite different from what is found in Left Behind, looking from the outside now, the principle doesn’t seem that different. Although the Second Coming was something for us to look forward to, there was also a very real sense of fear that I would miss out for missing the signs and not being ready when the events unfolded.

Context of Thessalonians

Although in these modern times, Christians have looked to the text in 1 Thessalonians as primarily eschatological (i.e., end times) and supporting the doctrine of the rapture, is that what Paul meant and what the recipients at Thessalonica drew out? The answer is neither yes nor no.

The opening sentence of this subsection (pericope) is often glossed over, but it is quite puzzling when we think about it. It reads,

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.[3]

Why are the Christians in Thessalonica grieving their dead as if there was no hope for them? Had they not heard about the resurrection of the dead? The next sentence reads,

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died.[4]

Paul includes the Thessalonians as those who believe in the resurrection of the dead in Jesus. So, what is the problem?

The common response is that they (including Paul at the time of writing this letter) believed Jesus would return while they were still alive, and thus the death of some of them in the interim raised questions. But the resurrection of the dead at Jesus’ return should solve any issues, shouldn’t it?

The problem seems to stem from a misinterpretation of what Paul had taught them. Paul taught that the age to come had already begun. At least in part. But it appears that the Thessalonians thought the age to come had come in its fullness. One commentary explains this confusion in this way.

In our reconstruction of the millennial radicalism of this congregation, it appears that death was thought to have been abolished with the dawning of the new age, which explains why they would grieve “as others do who have no hope.” An important effort to resolve this puzzle was made by Joseph Plevnik, who suggested that an apocalyptic doctrine of assumption into paradise as a way of escaping death had been taught by Paul, which the Thessalonians erroneously took to mean that those already dead would not be caught up, or raptured (Plevnik 1984: 274–83). They are lamenting “as though there is no afterlife or resurrection” (Richard 1995: 225) because, as I would explain it, having already been resurrected by their membership in the new age, there would be no further resurrection for those who have died. In effect, the congregation thinks it has already been raptured by means of its charismatic ecstasy, placing them beyond death. This would explain both the shock at the death of loved ones and the fear that they had “believed in vain.” However one explains this unprecedented confusion on the part of the Thessalonians, it is clear that they “feared their dead would lose out on the chance to be assumed to heaven at the time of the parousia”.[5]

Summarized, the Thessalonians believed that because the new age had already come, they had already been resurrected, and that there would be no additional resurrections. Their fear and dismay may have further been influenced by Greek and Roman ideas about what happens to those who die. One idea that existed was that those who died did not cease to exist, but that they continued in a diminished form.[6] Without a resurrection, they would forever be stuck in a state where they were not able to enjoy communion with God and the rest of the saved. The loss of ability to have relationships was perhaps more fearful to them than death in the present life.

The ideas concerning heaven as a place for the righteous, the resurrected being caught into heaven, and the trumpet call were already part of the cultural milieu of the time, in Jewish and Greco-Roman thought. Paul was not inventing something completely new. He was reinterpreting what was already accepted among the people of his time. In other words, he was utilizing the language, images, and metaphors of the time to communicate theology. Greg Carey writes as follows regarding eschatological texts in the Bible:

Eschatological texts feature a profoundly poetic dimension, even when they are not written as poetry… A great deal of eschatological material works through images and lyrics, often appropriating images from antecedent texts or refracting images over against—more precisely, in interaction with—one another…[7]

Paul is not making doctrinal claims; although he is not writing poetry in the conventional sense, he’s speaking the peculiar kind of poetry characteristic of eschatological literature.[8]

In other words, Paul is not giving his readers a detailed and specific checklist of how Jesus will return. He is using imagery, metaphor, and language common at the time to correct an erroneous interpretation of one of his teachings that had caused the Thessalonians to fall into despair.

It’s All About Hope

The study of end times, eschatology, often leads to fear. “Will I make it?” is often the question at the end of hearing about the rapture, regardless of the specifics of it.

For Paul, the return of Jesus Christ is all about hope. It is about reuniting and restoration. When we speak about the return of Christ, when we talk about the end times, let hope be the theme and the purpose of our speech. If anyone walks away with fear about the end times, it is a signal that perhaps we have miscommunicated and a chance to reflect and improve our communication for the next time.

In the name of God who inspires hope,

In the name of God who will complete our hopes,

And in the name of God who sustains our hopes…

Bibliography

Allen, R. J., & Cornwall, R. D. (2023). Second Thoughts about the Second Coming: Understanding the End Times, Our Future, and Christian Hope. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Black, J. (2014, March 22). Ascension to the heavens in ancient mythology. Retrieved from Ancient Origins: Reconstructing the Story of Humanity's Past: https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends/ascension-heavens-ancient-mythology-001471

Carey, G. (2023). Death, the End of History, and Beyond: Eschatology in the Bible. 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.

Johnston, S. I. (2017, March 31). Many (Un)Happy Returns: Ancient Greek Concepts of a Return from Death and their Later Counterparts. Retrieved from Coming Back to Life (McGill University Library): https://comingbacktolife.library.mcgill.ca/article/view/8/51

PC(USA) 118th General Assembly (1978). (2010, March 17). Eschatology: The Doctrine of Last Things. Retrieved from PC(USA) Presbyterian Mission: https://www.presbyterianmission.org/resource/eschatology-doctrine-last-things/

Poythress, V. (2009, March 13). Understanding Dispensationalism. Retrieved from Westminster Theological Seminary: https://faculty.wts.edu/lectures/understanding-dispensationalism/

Tabor, J. (2023, November 4). If I Ascend to Heaven … Paul’s Journey to Paradise. Retrieved from Biblical Archaeology Society: https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/if-i-ascend-to-heavenpauls-journey-to-paradise/

 

 

---

[1] PH 6 Jesus Comes with Clouds Descending; PH 449 My Lord! What a Morning; STF 2282 I'll Fly Away (Presbyterian Hymnal; Sing the Faith)

[2] (PC(USA) 118th General Assembly (1978), 2010).

[3] 1 Thessalonians 4:13 (NRSVue).

[4] 1 Thessalonians 4:14.

[5] (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003, pp. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18)

[6] (Carey, 2023, p. Kindle location approximately 1607)

[7] (Carey, 2023, p. Kindle location approximately 928)

[8] (Carey, 2023, p. Kindle location approximately 948)

Sermon: Who Is Jesus?

Lectionary: Proper 25(A)

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

Introduction

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

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

So…

Setting Up the Context

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

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

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

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

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

Question Asked and Question Posed

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

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

The Question of Jesus’ Identity

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

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

Word Linkage in Hebrew Literature

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

The Greatest Commandment(s)

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

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

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

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

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

Whose Son Is Jesus?

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

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

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

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

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

Adding New Interpretation to Scripture

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

---

[1] Matthew 21:9.

[2] Matthew 21:10-11.

[3] Mark 11:12, 15.

[4] Matthew 21:15.

[5] Matthew 21:17.

[6] Matthew 21:18-20.

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

[8] Matthew 21:23.

[9] Matthew 21:28-33.

[10] Matthew 22:34-40.

[11] Mark 12:28-34.

[12] Matthew 22:46.

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

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

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

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

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

[18] Matthew 22:40.

[19] Matthew 22:42.

[20] Matthew 22:43-45.

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

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

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

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