Sermon: Dismantling the Status Quo

Lectionary Year A, Proper 24
Gospel Text: Matthew 22:15-22

I was looking at my calendar from three years ago and discovered that I had preached on this exact same passage at this very location. I glanced through what I had written down and didn’t see anything that I would really change. For a brief moment I thought about using the exact same sermon to see if someone might recognize it.

 

However, even if the scripture is the same and most of what I had expressed then is still valid, we are in a different chronological year with some very different life circumstances. And with that in mind I dug into the text and various resources to glean new perspectives that are pertinent for us today.

 

I want to start out by saying that even though the question in the passage is specifically about a type of Roman tax, what I found this time isn’t really about taxes at all. 

Context of Today’s Reading

In order to place today’s reading in its proper context, we have to back up all the way to the beginning of Matthew chapter 21, which begins with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the start of Passion Week. On that Sunday, after his entry into the city Jesus makes his way to the Temple and drives out the money changers and the merchants who had set up their tables in the court area. He accused the temple officials of “making it [the Temple] a den of robbers.” And the officials became angry, not just because of what he did, but of the kinds of people Jesus attracted to the Temple — the blind, the lame, and children.

 

He leaves Jerusalem for the night but returns the following day to the Temple. The officials gather to question Jesus about the authority he exercises and from where it comes. Of course, Jesus gives a non-answer answer, but which is utterly clear to the officials what Jesus infers. And in response Jesus tells three parables.

Three Parables

The first parable is the parable of two sons where the father asks each to go work in the vineyard (which is a metaphor for Israel). One says no, but goes. The other says yes, but doesn’t. Jesus provides the explanation for this parable in which the repentance of the first son who says not, but actually does, is the way of righteousness. This is the way followed by tax collectors and prostitutes into the kingdom of heaven, but one that so far, has been rejected by the leaders and officials who are tasked with tending the vineyard of Israel.

 

The second parable is about wicked tenant farmers who have been leased the vineyard from the landowner, but when the landowner sends his servants to collect the proceeds due to the landowner, the tenants beat and kill the servants. The landowner finally sends his son, but the tenants kill the son and seize the vineyard for themselves. Jesus then says that the wicked tenants will be put to death and the vineyard will be leased to other tenants who will give back the appropriate produce. The leaders and officials realize Jesus is speaking of them as the wicked tenants. They wanted to arrest Jesus, but were afraid of the crowds so took no action at that time.

 

Jesus continues speaking in the Temple court a third parable. This one is about a wedding banquet. Invitations had already been sent, but on the day of the banquet, the king sends his servants to bring all the invited to the banquet. But those invited all refuse. More servants are sent, but the invited pay no heed, going as far as mistreating and killing the servants. The king sends his army to destroy the murderers of his servants and all their property. Then the king sends servants to the streets to bring in anyone who could be found, both good and bad.

Three Questions

It is still this same day that the Pharisees hatch another plot to discredit and destroy Jesus. In their honor-shame society, the earlier exchanges I retold have severely undermined their honor and credibility. The only way to restore their honor and eliminate their shame is by shaming Jesus and discrediting him in front of the crowds. In their plot, they bring in the Herodians, an unlikely group, to assist them. The Pharisees, at least on the surface, despised Roman subjugation of the Jews. The Herodians were more accommodationist and pragmatic, seeing Roman rule as something they benefited from.

 

Following this exchange about taxes, Jesus is approached by the officials and leaders two more times. The Sadducees, associated with the priestly class at this time, and pro-Roman due to their appointment by the Romans, ask Jesus about the resurrection. The Pharisees then try one more time — this final question by a lawyer to ask about the Greatest Commandment. 

History and Politics

It should be noted that the Temple is not simply a religious location, but the center of Jewish politics. The Jews had some autonomy under Roman rule, and the temple and its leaders and officials were both religious and political leaders of this semi-autonomous Jewish nation. 

 

Additionally, there have been numerous other Messiahs in their recent history. Their revolutions had, in every case, been violently and ruthlessly quashed by the Romans. It would appear to some that Jesus could be following in the footsteps of some of these revolutionary predecessors. 

The Gospel Challenge

Throughout Jesus’ public ministry, the gospel challenged the status quo. He started out in the less populated and more rural Galilee region, but he has been coming closer and closer to Jerusalem. And now, he has finally reached Jerusalem and brought his radically different view of how the society should operate and how members of that society ought to relate to one another. And he was proclaiming it from the sacred precinct of the Temple itself. Jesus brought the challenge against the status quo directly to those most vested in keeping it, and he was winning the battle of competing kingdoms with his rhetoric and with the crowds. 

 

Jesus’ message was good news to all who had nothing and nothing to lose. It was good news to those who were already outcasts, marginalized, and oppressed. Jesus’ message of inclusive society, egalitarianism and shared resources was good news to those who fought for every scrap they needed to stay alive another day. 

 

But the same message was not nearly so good news to those who would see those they had looked down upon be granted the same level of honor and privilege. Power and privilege only mean something when there exists those who are “less than.” The leaders and officials might be under the thumb of the rule of Rome, but at least they were in possession of power and privilege over others in this current social order. To accept Jesus’ way would mean giving all that up. Not only that but if Jesus’ movement resulted in another revolution, it could destroy the social fabric and stability they depended upon to maintain what they possessed. They certainly didn’t possess everything they wanted, but what little they had, they were vested in protecting.

 

Jesus must go. He cannot be allowed to continue spreading his anti-social order message.

Desire to Maintain the Status Quo

This first question about taxes is framed as a question about the interpretation of the Torah, the Law, but it is a political one. And it doesn’t matter if Jesus loses credibility with his followers, or if Jesus’ response prompts action from the Romans. Either way, Jesus and his message is destroyed. 

 

On surface their initial addressing of Jesus looks like flattery, but it is contempt. In a society where adherence to tradition and authority is valued, their words accuse Jesus of disregarding tradition, operating without proper sanction, and committing the sin of independence. 

 

“What do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar?” they ask.

 

They are the experts in the law and politics. They have trained for debates and have long experience with rhetoric. This is supposed to be a “Gotcha” question. It is designed to have just two possible responses. 

 

But first, Jesus calls them out on their motives. And then he pulls out a new option. He asks for a coin. He himself does not possess one, nor probably any of his disciples. But the questioners seem to easily produce one. 

 

Jesus asks whose image and inscription is on the coin, a Roman silver denarius. The only coin authorized to pay the poll tax which is under question. They respond, “The emperor’s.”

 

The whole point of having money changers at the temple was because the Pharisees and others committed to keeping the law found the denarius and other Roman coins offensive. They featured images of the emperor and the inscription “son of a god.” The Romans permitted the Jews to mint their own copper coins which did not contain any offensive features. These were the coins typically used by Jews, especially within the temple grounds. There was no practical need to carry anything else. 

 

To possess a Roman silver denarius within the temple grounds meant at least some of them were violating their own traditions. It also suggests that they had enough wealth to casually carry around coins of higher denominations than necessary for daily commerce. It may be a metaphor for where their true allegiance lies.

 

Jesus declares, “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

 

This might sound like two separate realms and a person is obliged to both. But Psalm 24:1 reads 

 

The earth is the LORD’s and all that is in it,

the world, and those who live in it. (NRSV)

 

and earlier in Matthew (6:24) Jesus has already stated that

 

“No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (NRSV)

 

In light of this the response Jesus gave is, on its literal face, ambiguous, but to those who knew the scriptures and had been listening to his teachings, the implied answer is clear: all things belong to God. Payment or non-payment of civil taxes levied must be decided in light of how will or will not serve God. The leaders understood what Jesus meant, and can be inferred from the Lucan gospel (23:2) where they charge Jesus before Pilate saying, “We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor.” (NRSV)

 

I also find it interesting that the betrayal of Jesus is paid for with thirty silver coins from the temple treasury. Although the text doesn’t specify the exact coin, some commentators suggest that the silver coins were most likely to be  Roman denarii. If that were indeed the case, how ironic and absolutely hypocritical to have the ostensibly despised Roman coin in the heart of the temple.  

What About Our Status Quo?

In our present time, the year 2020 has been an year of unplanned upheavals. For a great many, the previous status quo has been broken. From pandemics and its direct effects on society, to economic upheavals, to the increasing racial and socio-economic tensions, this has been a revelatory year.

 

There is a great and strong desire to “return to normal.” But I would dare ask these questions: Was the previous normal good for all humanity? How many of us were beneficiaries of a status quo maintained at the expense of other human beings? 

 

The gospel of Jesus Christ is the breaking and dismantling of all human-based systems of society. It is the breaking in of a new kind of society that can only be birthed and maintained by Christ and through the Spirit of Christ. 

 

There is frequently talk of having to find a “new normal.” Will that new normal be more equitable, more egalitarian, more like the society proclaimed by Jesus? 

Move Forward and Rebuild

Lectionary Year C, Proper 27
OT Reading: Haggai 1:15b-2:9

Sermon at First Presbyterian Church, Petersburg, Alaska on November 6, 2016.

Introduction

When we look around and observe the world around us, it’s difficult not to see the many problems, troubles, conflicts, divisions, and plain ugliness that seem omnipresent. There seem to be no easy solutions; and sometimes we wonder if there are any solutions at all. In the more pessimistic recesses of our minds, we think that maybe the world has gone so off track that it is on an irreversible downward trend into utter chaos and wreckage.

Many, faced with such a dark and uncertain future, understandably look to the past — when things seemed to be better, when things seemed more certain, when things and people seemed to be in their proper places, when there seemed to be order and predictability. And the temptation to try to recreate the past grows strong.

Nostalgia

There is a term for this which you’ve probably guessed; it is nostalgia. Alan R. Hirsch describes nostalgia as a yearning for an idealized past — “a longing for a sanitized impression of the past, what in psychoanalysis is referred to as a screen memory — not a true recreation of the past, but rather a combination of many different memories, all integrated together, and in the process all negative emotions filtered out.” (http://elitedaily.com/life/science-behind-nostalgia-love-much/673184/)

That sounds negative, but studies have found that nostalgia can help people cope with negative life events, depression, and even eases facing death.

Here are a few paragraphs in a New York Times article from 2013:

Nostalgia does have its painful side — it’s a bittersweet emotion — but the net effect is to make life seem more meaningful and death less frightening. When people speak wistfully of the past, they typically become more optimistic and inspired about the future.

“Nostalgia serves a crucial existential function,” Dr. Routledge says. “It brings to mind cherished experiences that assure us we are valued people who have meaningful lives. Some of our research shows that people who regularly engage in nostalgia are better at coping with concerns about death.”

“Nostalgia helps us deal with transitions,” Dr. Hepper says. “The young adults are just moving away from home and or starting their first jobs, so they fall back on memories of family Christmases, pets and friends in school.”

(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/science/what-is-nostalgia-good-for-quite-a-bit-research-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Scientific American reports “situations that trigger negative emotions, feelings of loneliness, and perceptions of meaninglessness cause people to become nostalgic.” (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/the-rehabilitation-of-an-old-emotion-a-new-science-of-nostalgia/)

Dr. Hal McDonald, in Psychology Today (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/time-travelling-apollo/201606/the-two-faces-nostalgia) describes two kinds of nostalgia. The first is restorative nostalgia, in which the person tries to recreate (or restore) the past into the present. The second is reflective nostalgia, in which the person savors the experience without trying to recreate it.

He writes:

These two types of nostalgia represent fundamentally different attitudes toward the past, and it is this difference that largely determines whether our memories of those happy days of yore will evoke feelings of joy or of sadness…

Restorative nostalgia is really a kind of homesickness—a homesickness for the past—more akin to the original pathological definition of nostalgia than to our current view of the term…

Reflective nostalgia, on the other hand, accepts the fact that the past is, in fact, past, and rather than trying to recreate a special past experience, savors the emotions evoked by its recollection.  This acknowledgment of the irretrievability of our autobiographical past provides an aesthetic distance that allows us to enjoy a memory in the same way that we enjoy a movie or a good book.

As you might guess, the latter, reflective nostalgia, is a more healthy response than the former, which tries to recreate (in vain) an idealized past.

Back from Exile

This brings us to the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon. Or at least a few of them. The prophet Jeremiah, early in the exile, had written and told them:

5 “Build homes, and plan to stay. Plant gardens, and eat the food they produce. 6 Marry and have children. Then find spouses for them so that you may have many grandchildren. Multiply! Do not dwindle away! 7 And work for the peace and prosperity of the city where I sent you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, for its welfare will determine your welfare.” (Jeremiah 29:5-7 NLT)

Many had settled in Babylon and felt no need to return to their ancestral lands and face inevitable hardships there.

Cyrus had decreed that the Jews could return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple there. But the work had not really begun. The people went and worked on their individual homes and fields. The prophets had prophesied that their return would result in blessings (c.f. Ezekiel), but the people only saw reminders of destruction, desolation, and daily experienced difficulties.

Nearly twenty years had passed. And now the prophet Haggai rose to declare to the people that the current sad state of affairs was due to their neglect in rebuilding the Temple.

Not the Prosperity Gospel

At this point it should be said that Haggai could be used to support a prosperity gospel: i.e., that God blesses those who contribute toward his demands, and curses those who neglect him.

But it is important to note that the ancient temple is not equivalent to the present day churches or denominations. Neither should the temple be limited to spiritual and religious facets of individual and societal life.

The ancient temple was the center of religious, spiritual, social, and economic life. It was the hub of community and connections. A healthy temple meant healthy society and community. It was the place of celebrations. It was where relationships between human and deity, and between humans were restored and strengthened.

I think it can be difficult for Westerners, particularly Americans, to understand how the temple could be the center of so much of community. We value individualism, we tend to strictly segregate different spheres of our lives, and religion is certainly in a decline. But at least from anecdotal, personal experience that I’ve had in Japan large temples and shrines still form a major part of the economy through tourism and festivals; they are still focus of major celebrations and places where families and community come together; where life’s petitions, dreams, and goals are offered up.

When Haggai claims that the peoples’ neglect of the temple was the cause of their life problems, we can see how that can be reasonable logic. Haggai’s accusation is that the people were so concerned about their individual survival and comfort that they had neglected the well-being of the community. It is not the prosperity gospel, at least not in the present-day sense of the phrase in which God blesses individuals in a quid pro quo fashion. Rather it is a declaration that when the community looks after everyone in the community, God can multiple the sum of their efforts for the good of the entire community.

What is Wealth?

Stanley Hauerwas, at Duke University, drawing from Millbank and Pabst, theologians and philosophers, to describe wealth in terms of

goods that can be shared together such as intimacy, trust, beauty. The goods that should determine how we live are embedded in the practices of honour and reciprocity which are developed over time through the habits sustained by a tradition. The formation of such traditions depends on the existence of people of wisdom who can provide the judgments necessary for responding to new challenges while remaining faithful to the past.

People who so live do not think their first task in life is to become more wealthy or powerful as individuals. Rather wealth is best thought of as what we share in common, such as parks, or practices to which all have access, such as medicine. In other words, the post-liberal strategy is exactly the opposite of the liberal assumption that assumes that social practices of mutual assistance should be eliminated, while at the same time encouraging our desires for wealth and prestige. The liberal desire for the well-being of the individual not only ignores the goods built on gift relations, but in effect destroys the habits that make such relations possible.

(http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/11/02/4567512.htm)

Exhortation Heeded, But Things Don’t Look Good

The people heed Haggai’s words and begin the process of temple reconstruction. About two months later, Haggai offers a new word, the passage that was read this morning.

It appears that the people have been hard at work, but progress is slow. And what they have to show for it isn’t much. It is also possible that among the people are some elderly Jews who remember the first temple. Whether it is they, or the younger generation recalling the stories of old about the first temple, what they see before them is sorely lacking. They are discouraged. If their well-being and future rely upon God accepting the results of their construction, it doesn’t look very good. They have good reason to be concerned.

Suffering from Restorative Nostalgia

The people are suffering from the first, bad kind of nostalgia: restorative nostalgia. They want to recreate the new temple to resemble the first in its physical and religious grandeur. That’s, after all, what Ezekiel appears to have prophesied.

This kind of nostalgia can cause harm in many ways. It can halt progress — because the new can’t possibly be as good as the old, why bother? People can get stuck in the past. It can lead to feelings of depression and discouragement.

Or it can cause people to turn against each other — I know how it’s supposed to look like, so why can’t you just obey my instructions? Or, I know better than you, I’m the expert, so your opinions and ideas are worthless. Or, are you trying to sabotage the project with your less-than-perfect plans? People become divided, one group against another.

God Invites Reflective Nostalgia

Through Haggai, God offers a word of reflective nostalgia — the good kind of nostalgia. Haggai reminds the people of God’s faithfulness in their lives. The past cannot be recreated; but the past offers reminders that can strengthen and encourage the people to move forward.

God says, “I am with you.” He declares, “My spirit remains among you, just as I promised when you came out of Egypt. So do not be afraid.”

It is an invitation to remember how God has been with them, all the way from their beginnings in Egypt. It is an invitation to reflect on the power and strength of God to sustain and deliver.

It is a declaration that God does not dwell in the past but he is always a part of the present. God cannot be summoned by recreating the past. The people must move forward to where God is taking them.

God Is Found Where His People Work

God is already among them. The temple isn’t where God resides. God is where the people are doing the work of restoring God’s glory by their efforts to rebuild, restore, and heal community.

The returned exiles seemed to think God couldn’t come and bless them until the temple was complete and functional; and that the degree of blessing depended on the physical magnificence of the structure. What they heard was that their very efforts were where God could be present and manifest his glory.

Haggai exhorts the people to do the work. As long as they are doing the work of building community to reflect God’s image, God will be with them and bless them. Other nations will hear and wonder. They will be curious and come. And peace will be the result.

Fantasy or Reality?

Does this sound too good to be true? Is Haggai describing a fantasy?

I think the key point to remember is that the work we do for God is not to secure blessings for ourselves, or for our families, or for our church, but to bless the whole world. When Abram was first called by God, the blessings offered to him were so that the entire world would be blessed through him. I believe that is still God’s desire and his purpose for the church.

I think for far too long the church has been preoccupied with her own security and place in the world. Like the returned exiles during their first twenty years, the church is too often concerned about accounting and finances, membership rolls, and her pursuit of temporal influence and power. Too often the church neglects the people and community just outside her, sometimes literal, walls.

I believe the words of Haggai are still relevant for the church today. We need to rebuild the temple — no, not necessarily the physical church or congregations — but the image of God that we who claim to be followers of Christ represent to the world. The church must rebuild the picture of God that those outside her metaphorical walls see inside.

Is that impossible? Is that too hard? Has the image been so destroyed that it can’t be rebuilt? Is the destruction and desolation too much to bear?

Haggai’s words should still ring true for us today. God is with us. Just as he rescued Israel from Egypt, brought the exiles back from Babylon, helped them rebuild the second temple, gave us his perfect image in Jesus Christ, and sustained the church through two millennia, his Spirit remains to strengthen and lead us today. “Do not be afraid,” God commands.

Rebuild God’s Temple Today

We can rebuild God’s temple in our world today. We can restore the image of Jesus Christ that has been destroyed by religionists. We do it through our love, compassion, and faithfulness to the people of this community. We do it through our efforts to foster harmony and peace among peoples, especially among those with whom we disagree. We do it through our attitudes and actions that value people and relationships first.

We were placed on this earth to bless others. We were saved by Christ so that we would know his purpose and be given the power and strength to do this difficult but rewarding work. We have been given the ministry of reconciliation, of rebuilding people and relationships that have been broken. Let us come together and work together to restore the image and glory of God in his temple, the church, us.

Sermon: Snakes!

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fall, Revisited

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

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

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

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

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

God Intervenes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus becomes the curse to destroy it forever

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

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

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

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

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

Summary: We are Part of the New Creation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us pray…

Sermon: Through the Lens of Love

Lectionary: Year A, Proper 25
Gospel Text: Matthew 22:34-46 (NRSV)
Sermon Audio (23 minutes)

If the picture of God we’re projecting to the world isn’t first of all love,
then our theology is likely wrong.

Thesis: All of us build theological and cultural “boxes” which help explain God, the world, and our place in it. But we must never allow these to turn into gods – idols – that prevents us from hearing and seeing God more perfectly.

Questions: What kind of God does our proclamation of God say about him? What kind of power and authority do we picture him wielding?

This sermon was given at the Presbyterian Church on October 26, 2014.

This passage consists of two conflict stories, which upon first glance seem somewhat disjointed and unrelated. Upon closer examination, however, it can be seen that the first is the explanation for the second.

The Greatest Commandment

The first part of the passage is the “test” presented to Jesus by a lawyer from the Pharisees in which he asks which is the greatest commandment. This is a story that is familiar to nearly all Christians, young and old, in which Jesus responds with “love God” and “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Where we 21st century Westerners get hung-up is with the ordinals, “first” and “second”. First and second usually mean “first” has priority over “second” so when Jesus says the “second is like unto the first” we subconsciously think that “love God” is slightly more important than “love your neighbor” even when we intellectually know that both are supposed to be equal.

When “love God” is taken by itself as the most important commandment, Christians often end up with some kind of performance-based, individualistic set of codes that are meant to improve devotion to God.

The proper way of understanding and applying Jesus’ statement is to take to heart what he said: that both are truly equal, that there is no “first” or “second.” In fact I believe it is quite proper to see “love your neighbor as yourself” as the application of “love God.”^[1] The “love your neighbor” comes from Leviticus 19:9-18, in which the text quite clearly provides concrete examples of what that looks like. Jesus tells his audience that loving God cannot happen apart from community.

So, after all his preaching and teaching, after all his travels and miracles, here, just days before his crucifixion, our Lord names his center—the center of his ministry, the center of his mission, the center of the kingdom he has been sent to proclaim and build—and it is love. Love of neighbor, care and concern for each other.^[2]

What Is the Messiah?

The second conflict is one which Jesus initiates against the group of Pharisees still in the vicinity. He asks them what they think about the Messiah and whose son they think he is.

The Pharisees respond by saying that the Messiah is David’s son.

Jesus uses a quote from Psalm 110:1 and asks, then how could David call the Messiah “my Lord” if the Messiah is David’s son as they just claimed?

Separated by time and culture, this is a particularly puzzling and enigmatic question for us. It doesn’t make much sense and we have difficulty comprehending how this is connected to the rest of Matthew Chapter 22. What we need is a little cultural exegesis.

It is almost unheard of in an ancient Near Eastern context for a sovereign like David to call one who comes after him “Lord,” thereby granting the descendant even greater authority than the patriarch. By conventional logic, this threatens the stability of the whole patriarchal system, which depends on the head to retain permanent authority, which then gives security, identity, and stability to those who follow in the line. This is why the Pharisees are stunned and unable to give an answer to Jesus, who is arguing that David, in his enigmatic statement in Psalm 110:1, is daring to expect that someone even greater than he will emerge in his wake, to whom he will gladly submit. The Pharisees, recognizing that this could undermine the whole basis of their authority, grow silent and cease from asking Jesus any more questions.^[3]

The Jewish religious interpretations were not expecting a divine Messiah. They were expecting a warrior-king Messiah in the pattern of David, coming to wield military and physical might and re-establish the Jewish kingdom on earth. They were expecting a Messiah to affirm and abide by their longstanding traditions of their ancestors.

They were not expecting a Messiah whose power and authority were based on self-sacrificing love. They had a theological and cultural box with certain expectations about the Messiah, and Jesus did not fit into that box. This is how the two stories in this passage come together. In the first, Jesus proclaimed the foundation of his kingdom. In the second is the explanation of why the Jewish powers rejected Jesus.

Core to the tension, perhaps, is the central teaching of Jesus itself. Both to his followers (7:12) and to his opponents (22:34–40), love is the commandment on which hang all of the law and the prophets. Love, not power; love, not heritage; love, not law.^[4]

Love is the Lens

The Jewish authorities saw everything through the lens of law, tradition, ancestry, and patriarchy.

Jesus tells them, “you are wrong” (c.f., 22:29). “You don’t understand the scriptures nor the power of God” because you have failed to see the real power of God—love.

Could we become so attached to our religious and cultural boxes that we become blind to God’s power of love? What does our theology-in-practice show about God and his power? If it isn’t love, our theology is wrong.

---

[1] C.f., Romans 13:8-10 where Paul distills all of the Law into “love your neighbor.”

[2] Feasting on the Gospels--Matthew, Volume 2: A Feasting on the Word Commentary. Location 7232.

[3] Feasting: Matthew, location 7334.

[4] Feasting: Matthew, location 7416.

Sermon: “You Give Them Something to Eat”

Lectionary: Year A, Proper 13
Gospel Text: Matthew 14:13-21 (NRSV)

Thesis: Jesus did not simply do compassionate deeds; he was compassion in his whole being. As his disciples, our walk with Christ should include growing from merely doing compassion to embodying compassion in this world.

Sermon Audio: 27 minutes

I was asked to fill in at the Lutheran Church while Pastor Mike is away on vacation. The text for today was the story of Feeding the Five-Thousand, aka the Loaves and Fishes.

This is such a well known story and because it is found in all four gospels, it comes around to preachers rather frequently. Should I just settle for preaching what has been preached over and over, or could I find something new in this story?

As I read the account in Matthew, I became more and more unsettled, uncomfortable, and troubled. This is not merely a miracle story or a story with a feel-good premise about God providing for all our needs. This is a story about discipleship training in the area of compassion. The disciples seemed to have a lack of it and Jesus is trying to teach them how genuine compassion acts. It is also a story of Jesus instructing the disciples about what the Kingdom of Heaven is like and on the part they are to play in it.

When this story is read from the perspective of the disciples, it is not a quaint little story but a difficult one that demands much from all who call themselves Christian and followers of Jesus Christ.

God With Us

Lectionary, Year A, Epiphany week 2

• Text: John 1:29-42

Although John’s gospel account does not include the infancy narratives that provide accounts of how God came to dwell with humankind, the first chapter uses metaphors and allusions to provide readers with the Christology of the Incarnation.

The first part of John 1 portrays Jesus as the Eternal Word that “camps” [skenoo] with humankind. In the latter half of the first chapter, through the narrative rhetoric of John the Baptist and the first disciples, the text shows the incarnation of divinity among the daily lives of his creation.

What I see is a pair of chiastic structures where the outer envelopes and the centers highlight the identity of Jesus. In the outer envelopes Jesus is the “Lamb of God,” the “Son of God,” and the “Messiah.” In the center portions is described how first, John the Baptist recognizes the divinity of Jesus, and then how Jesus reveals himself to his first disciples. The word meno translated as remain and stay tie these two parts together. This also looks forward to John 15 and the same word used there, frequently translated as abide.

What I take from this is that God isn’t going anywhere. He dwelt physically among humankind in the person of Jesus, but his Spirit remains with us today.

When we see the world around us we often ask the same question of God, “Where are you [staying]?” His response is the same today as it was then, “Come and you will see.” Where does he take the questioners today? I believe it is to his people among whom the Spirit continues to abide.

I first thought verse 42 seemed almost like an afterthought, but upon reflection it seems key to bringing together this pericope. Maybe Peter was asking a similar question. The gospel writer is perhaps telling us that his question was heard [Simon] and as a result Jesus became the source of stable identity for him [Cephas – “rock”]. Sure, Peter’s thoughts and actions would waver and stumble through his life journey, but his trust in Jesus would remain true to the end.

How do you read this passage? What speaks to you?

Grace and Truth is God’s Totality

Lectionary Christmas 2A

• John 1:1, 10-18

Pictured above is the last few verses of this week’s Lectionary Gospel reading.

The climax appears to be found at verse 17. The author is likely alluding to Moses’ experience on Sinai as described in Exodus 34. He contrasts the giving of the law with the coming of Jesus Christ. The law “given through Moses” implies a source, but the author chooses to omit it, giving this text a far more negative portrayal of the law than even Paul(!). Not only does law not bring salvation, it cannot even give a revelation of God. (This text could even be read that the law as given was ultimately Moses’ interpretation of God.) The way law and Jesus Christ are contrasted, the author seems to be communicating that the law, in fact, paints a picture of God that is utterly wrong.

What the author wants his readers to understand is that the only way to “see” God is through Jesus Christ. Jesus was and is with the Father – with the Father’s heart, even. This being, who is intimately familiar with the heart of the Father came to live with us.

What did the people who walked with Jesus discover? That the Father and Son share the same glory: “grace and truth.” That “grace and truth” is the “fullness,” or the totality, of who and what God is.

(The parenthetical statement from John the Baptist was likely added to argue against his followers and to counter Jewish traditions of authority figures.)

How might we apply this passage today? What strikes you as important? How do you see God?

Does Jesus Offend You?

Revised Common Lectionary, Advent Year 3A

• OT Reading: Isaiah 35:1-10
• Gospel Reading: Matthew 11:2-10

Jesus wasn’t exactly what John the Baptist expected. Or more likely, very little what he expected. When announcing Jesus, John had spoken of the Messiah/Christ as one coming in judgment against evildoers and oppressors (Matthew 3:7-12). But John had been imprisoned before he had a chance to observe Jesus. All he had to go on was what he was told and rumors that he overheard. And what he heard didn’t seem to be very good news. He may have wondered when was Jesus going to overthrow Herod and get him out of this dungeon, but Jesus didn’t seem to be in a hurry to do any such thing. The Messiah – wasn’t he supposed to “come with vengeance, with the recompense of God. He will come and save you” (Isaiah 35:4b ESV)?

John sends some of his disciples to Jesus to ask whether he (Jesus) is the Messiah, or whether he (John) should wait for someone else. Jesus doesn’t respond unequivocally but rather refers the disciples to his actions, his signs.

And Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me." (Matthew 11:4-6)

Jesus reminds John that the same prophecies that speak of judgment also speak of signs of mercy.

Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy. (Isaiah 35:5-6)

When we read these texts we might be tempted to interpret them as Jesus simply ministering to individuals and healing their immediate afflictions. But when the entire chapter of Matthew 11 is seen, I believe these examples of healings are symbols of his judgment against oppressive systems of power.

Let me explain. When Jesus refers to “reed shaken by the wind” (v.7) and “a man [singular] dressed in soft clothing” (v.8) he is referring to Herod Antipas^[1]. Then immediately afterwards, Matthew has Jesus speaking woe against a number of cities in which he had performed signs but did not repent. We tend to read into “repentance” individual repentance, but there is nothing in this pericope about individual repentance. In its context it seems best to read it as repentance (change) of abusive systems of power, as the example of Nineveh following the preaching of Jonah illustrates.

The end of the chapter is one with which most Christians are familiar: Jesus offering an easy yoke and rest to those who come to him. What is this rest? Common people were probably living in fear of political, economic, and religious abuses of power. They were suffering under onerous obligations of traditions. They were living under a system in which the sick, the maimed, and the poor were considered less than human and under judgment from God. I believe Jesus was offering a different way. The abuses might not go away immediately, but at least they could be free from fear. They could be free from the onerous traditions to be right with God. And the system that considered some less and some better would be abolished.

I found it instructive and helpful to read Matthew 21 alongside Matthew 11. Both chapters share a number of similar themes:

• Question: Who is Jesus?
• Question: Who is/was John the Baptist?
• What are the signs of the Christ?
• Jesus’ judgment against systemic and institutionalized abuses
• Fulfillment of OT prophecies
• The nature of the Kingdom of Heaven/God
• How “children” and “sinners” understand Jesus whereas the “wise” and “learned” cannot

The questions for us:

• How are we so acclimatized to systemic and institutionalized abuses of power that we believe them necessary to maintain for our own well-being and livelihood?
• How is Jesus calling upon us to give them up and join his kingdom?
• Are we offended by Jesus and his priorities?

I also refer you to the post, “Jesus used to be offensive—What changed?” at Question the Text on this topic that helped me work through my discussion.

---

^[1] Reading the New Testament Series: Matthew, section “Doubt, Indifference, and Dissent – Matthew 11:2-12:45”

What kind of Messiah are we celebrating?

Revised Common Lectionary, Advent Year 2A

• OT Reading: Isaiah 11:1-10
• Gospel Reading: Matthew 3:1-12

Over at Question the Text, Rev. Mark Stenberg wrote up some thoughts to help pastors think about different ways of approaching John the Baptist. What particularly got my attention was the following words:

“In our heavily revivalist, affluent, individualistic culture of success and achievement, with the all-responsible atomistic self at the center, have we not reduced this message to a word of purely personal repentance? What have you done with your life? Are you a success? Did you give your life to Jesus? Where are the fruits?

But the Bible was written from the underside. That’s what’s so hard for us to hear. These texts are a product of people who lived in fear, in anxiety, in the shadow of the empires of history.”

In preparing for our discussion at church, I flipped over to the Old Testament reading for the week found in Isaiah. What struck me in this passage was the second half:

⁶ The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them.
⁷ The cow and the bear shall graze;
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
⁸ The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den.
⁹ They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain;
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.

In our tradition this has most often been used as imagery of what things will be like in heaven. But in the context of the chapter, this is a parable or a metaphor, of what justice and righteousness looks like when the Messiah comes. (So in a sense, it does apply to the results of the Second Advent. In our discussion we observed that even when we apply the image to “heaven” we usually omit the part about the child playing with venomous snakes. We are selective in what we read.) We discussed what this metaphor might mean, especially in the light of the reality that Christians are already partially living in the Age to Come – the Kingdom Age. What I think this means is that peoples that were once opposed to one another, in conflict with one another, oppressors and victims, in the Church, are to come together in peace and harmony. Not only that but the Church as the earthly body of the Messiah (Christ) in the world today, we are to work to promote the kind of justice that John the Baptist and Jesus preached.

This brings us back to Matthew. Did John the Baptist and Jesus preach the same message or did Jesus preach something different from John? In Matthew 3:2 and Matthew 4:17, both John and Jesus are preaching the exact same thing: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

When we flip over to the Lucan account, additional details are found about the content of John’s message (Luke 3:10-14). This was in response to John’s indictment of the Pharisees and Sadducees that had come to John the be baptized.

¹⁰ And the crowds asked him, “What then shall we do?” ¹¹ And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” ¹² Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” ¹³ And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.” ¹⁴ Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

As this makes clear, John’s message was against the sins of systemic social injustice. He was speaking out against hoarding, the accumulation of excess wealth, and the abuse of position and power. These were behaviors considered acceptable. These were what those in privilege believed they had the right to do and had to do in order to maintain and increase their privileges.

And that brings things back to us now. The modern American Christian with our privileges, is closer to the Pharisees and the Sadducees, denounced by both John and Jesus. In our traditional readings of passages like the one we have here, we try to soften it by first, identifying ourselves with the masses, and second, by treating the message as one of individual sins and repentance (as Rev. Stenberg noted in the excerpt at the top). But I believe that does violence (by neutering) to the force and thrust of the true nature of what Matthew intended by including John’s words.

As our discussion revealed, this message against systemic injustices is a hard one for us to swallow. We do indeed like our privileges. We like the system that allows us to have it. So what does it mean to live as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, to espouse and live out its principles against social injustice? Offering compassion to the oppressed and marginalized is far easier than taking steps to change the systems that cause and perpetuate injustices. We can more easily swallow that Christians are called to the former, but what about the latter? Are we willing to go against the economic structures and civil policies, even if it means we might have to give up the very things that helped us achieve our privileges?

Many Christians punt on these questions by pointing to the Second Coming as the solution to all the world’s ills. But is that what Jesus really intended? Even if systemic injustice will never be eliminated, isn’t Jesus telling his friends – us – that part of our work is to make the effort to reduce injustice?

There are no easy answers. But these questions are ones Christians (myself included) need to really think about and digest.

In this Advent season as we are looking forward to the memory of Christmas, the arrival of the Messiah, we must ask ourselves, “What kind of Messiah are we celebrating?” A docile, inoffensive Baby? Or the Savior who has come to judge and destroy injustice and all who are support it?