Sermon: Mirepoix (Take Two)

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

The “Holy Trinity”

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

Here I quote some relevant portions from that section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Metaphors and Limitations

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

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

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

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

The traditional wording of the Nicene Creed includes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the name of God who Creates,

In the name of God who Redeems,

And in the name of God who Empowers, Amen.

References

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

---

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

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

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

Sermon: We Like to be In Control

The Ascension
by Benjamin West, PRA
1801

Lectionary: Easter 7B
Text: Acts 1

Introduction

Four years from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and arguably a couple of years now since it has become much less of a concern, we have learned a few things about human nature. One such thing is that we do not like unknowns and uncertainties, especially when there is no end in sight. Another, related to that, is that we would rather do anything than wait. And regarding that, we stumbled through numerous treatments and cures, many of which had no effect and some that were even quite harmful, just to have some semblance of reasserting control over the unknowns that were being faced. Even if many of those things were completely illusory.

For others of us, changes in routine can be quite upsetting and anxiety-inducing. To use myself as an example, while I like the idea of travel and seeing new places and having new experiences, all of the unknowns, uncertainties, changes in routines, and the loss of control involved in many aspects of travel often result in severe anxiety, which in turn manifests in physiological abnormalities. More than once the symptoms have been severe enough or concerning enough for me to seek out emergency medical services.

In-Between Time

On this final Sunday of the Easter liturgical season, we are looking at an in-between time. The followers of Jesus have experienced several monumental highs and lows: the arrest and crucifixion, the empty tomb, the multiple appearances of Jesus following his resurrection and the next forty days to them, and most recently, Jesus’ ascension. This is a huge number of emotional and psychological impacts that directly affect their being. Many of these events include large unknowns about what they think they will face about the future. Some of these involve the loss of Jesus, who had been their center and source of control and confidence for them.

It should not be a surprise then, to hear the question, “Lord, are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel now?” (Acts 1:6) coming from them. For forty days, it seems like their lives are returning to how things were before. Jesus is among them, walking with them and teaching them. He is speaking about the kingdom of God.

“Wait…”

But Jesus tells them that the restoration of the kingdom is not yet. Not only that, but there is no timetable that he gives them. What Jesus promises is the arrival of the Holy Spirit into them. And the command that Jesus gives them is to wait and “stay in the city until you have been furnished with heavenly power.” (Luke 24:49[1]) Jesus does not give any indication of how long they are to wait.

And then Jesus ascends and is no longer among them. Their world, which had been turned upside down by the crucifixion, but had seemed to be returning after the resurrection, is once again tossed into the air.

Waiting…

The disciples return to Jerusalem and begin their waiting for the Holy Spirit. The total number of individuals is reported as around one-hundred and twenty, including women. They begin their waiting period devoting themselves to prayer. Even though we know that the number of days between Jesus’ ascension and Pentecost is a mere ten days, they don’t know how long they would have to wait.

This next part is a narrative hypothesis of my imaginations as to how the next few days might have gone.

A day passes and there is no promised Holy Spirit. “Well,” some of them might suppose, “Jesus has just returned to God and he is still busy getting resettled in his heavenly abode. We shouldn’t expect the Holy Spirit so soon.”

A second day goes by, and still there is no Holy Spirit. Maybe a few a getting a bit antsy and anxious, but two days is still not a very long time to wait.

A third day goes by and more of them are starting to question and wonder. Is their devotion to prayer sufficient? Did they overlook something else Jesus told them to do while waiting? What could Jesus possibly be doing that is more important than sending to them the promised Holy Spirit?

Tired of Waiting

Now, the Bible doesn’t say how many days they waited until the next event recorded takes place. All the text tells us is that “during this time” of ten days, “Peter stood among them” and proposed a course of action.

Peter is not known for his patience. He is a man of words and action. He is a man of extremes. When Jesus comes walking on the water, Peter wants to do the same. Peter is the first to declare Jesus as “Son of God.” But the very next thing, Peter is rebuking Jesus. When Peter sees Jesus transfigured, he proposes building tents where all of them could continue experiencing glory. Peter at first refuses to have his feet washed by Jesus, but after Jesus tells him that it must be done, Peter asks for his entire body to be washed. Peter says he is willing to give his life for Jesus and in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter is ready to defend Jesus with a sword. But when Jesus tells him that force of arms is not the way, Peter flees and then denies ever knowing Jesus.

The impatient and impetuous Peter seems to resurface in the first chapter of Acts. He perhaps thinks that the reason the Holy Spirit hasn’t been given is because their number is incomplete. With Judas Iscariot no longer a part of the Twelve, the specially appointed disciples only number eleven. Perhaps it is with this reasoning that Peter proposes appointing a replacement for Judas. Peter justifies his proposition with a number of texts pulled from the Hebrew scriptures.

Nostalgia and Desire for Comfort

Peter’s proposal might also be colored by nostalgia. When they were the chosen Twelve with Jesus, traversing about Galilee, Judea, and the occasional foray outside of these areas, it was a happy time. They knew who they were and where they belonged. They were secure with Jesus. Perhaps in Peter’s mind, reverting to some of the old structure would ease the discomfort and anxiety that they were now experiencing. The replacement would have to be a man (not a woman) who had been with Jesus during his entire public ministry. That would restore proper structure.

Perhaps too, in the minds of Peter and the other disciples, because Jesus had appointed the Twelve specifically, that the ministry handed down to them by Jesus would remain their sole domain. That in order for Jesus’ ministry to continue, their number would need to be maintained through appointment of replacements. (Acts 1:15-26 is one of the passages that is used to base the doctrine of apostolic succession.)

The rest of the believers agree that this could very well be a good idea and nominate two candidates (the first Christian nominating committee): Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus), and Matthias. After prayer, they cast lots and Matthias is selected.

This is the only place where Matthias (and Joseph) is mentioned. Nothing is recorded about his history. He makes no recorded contributions to the early church. He is mentioned once and forgotten.

Perhaps replacing Judas with another wasn’t God’s idea, even when Peter found texts to support the action. Even when sincere prayer was involved.

But the Holy Spirit still doesn't arrive.

Pentecost

But then Pentecost comes (and here I touch on next Sunday’s lection). The believers are all gathered and the Holy Spirit rushes in, appearing like flames alighting atop each one, men and women alike. The gift of the Spirit and the commissioning of ministry is given to all of them, not just the Twelve.

When others in Jerusalem question what is happening, Peter gets up to speak, and he seems to have finally understood, at least in part, what the Holy Spirit has done. Peter quotes from the prophet Joel who prophesied that in the last days God will empower everyone – not just select priests, not just those with proper lineage, not just men, not just those of specific ages, and certainly not just appointed apostles.

Whereas the text of Acts merely relates the details of the appointment of Matthias without evaluation, the activities around the Day of Pentecost is evaluated positively. Although the absence of evaluation isn’t proof that what Peter and the believers did was negative, I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that what they did was not necessary for God do God’s work.

The Holy Spirit Among Us

The Holy Spirit breaks traditions and boundaries. The Holy Spirit is free to break even those markers that God might have placed in earlier times. The work of the Holy Spirit is often found in experiences that are discomforting. Growth is not found in places of comfort. Christians are not called and commissioned to replicate what has come before. We are not called to restore the past.

We are called to build the kingdom of God.

The kingdom of God sprouts and grows slowly, almost imperceptibly. It is like a mustard seed. It is like a seed that is sown. There might be long periods of time when nothing seems to be happening, like a seed that lies dormant until the right conditions develop. There might be lengthy times of waiting.

Faithfulness to God and God’s mission might mean that during some periods of our lives, it requires us to wait for God to act. We can’t force God to act.

Many times, we would rather act. Doing something at least feels better than doing nothing.

I don’t really know why God asks us to wait. God could just act without us having to wait. One speculation of mine is that God allows periods of waiting so that we can exhaust our “doings”. Perhaps these times allow us realization of those areas where we aren’t yet fully reliant on God. Perhaps we are like small children yelling, “I can do it myself!” when clearly, they cannot. Perhaps God is like the parent watching and waiting for us to acknowledge our limitations and allow God to work in God’s own time.

Sometimes faith demands we act. But faith also demands that at times we wait. We may suffer through discomfort and anxiety. We might want it to end. We might try to cause God to act. But God acts in God’s own time. Waiting is a spiritual discipline. Letting go of our desire to control is a spiritual discipline.

When God acts, and God does, it is through the Holy Spirit working through us. The results of God-initiated action are far beyond what we could have possibly imagined.

Bibliography

Bartlett, D. L., & Taylor, B. B. (2008). Feasting on the Word: Year B, Volume 2 (Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Gonzales, J. L. (2001). ACTS: The Gospel of the Spirit. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Liggett, J. (2024, May 12). Waiting, Easter 7 (B) – May 12, 2024. Retrieved from The Episcopal Church: https://www.episcopalchurch.org/sermon/waiting-easter-7-b-may-12-2024/

 

 

---

[1] C.f., Acts 1:4, “He ordered them not to leave Jerusalem but to wait for what the Father had promised.” The Lucan text is more explicit about what was promised.

Sermon: Ecstasy and Awe

The Risen Christ

Lectionary: Easter Sunday (B)

Text: Mark 16:1-8

Introduction

Most current scholars conclude that the gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 (where our reading ends). The two endings that are found added on past verse 8 have very little evidence to suggest that they belong there. But what it shows is the discomfort, even among the early Christians, to have a gospel account end in such a seemingly abrupt manner.

One of the common explanations for accepting the abrupt ending is to describe how the gospel of Jesus spread, and so the ending is not really and ending. After all, the very first sentence of the gospel account explains that what you are about to read and hear is “The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, God’s Son…” (Mark 1:1 CEB) And the very fact that you are reading and hearing it means that it didn’t end with the women being silent about the empty tomb.

What do we make of this strange ending then? Did the ending of the gospel get lost, as is sometimes suggested?

Translations

In her commentary on Mark, Reopening the Word: Reading Mark as Theology in the Context of Early Judaism, Marie Noonan Sabin suggest an alternate explanation. She provides details on how many of the words and images found in the final eight verses of Mark have ties that go into the rest of the gospel account. When those earlier themes are used as lenses to read the final verses, a different image appears. One that is both consistent with the gospel’s themes and one which allows the gospel to end at 16:8.

All translations are interpretations, and some translations are better than others. And not infrequently, the better translations depart from traditional ones as scholars become better informed about literature, history, religion, politics, and social practices of antiquity.

Echoes and Allusions

Mark 16:1

When the gospels were written, they would likely have been read in their entirety in a short span of time such that the audience would have fresh in their minds narrative what came earlier. But with our interrupted readings, we need to take frequent pauses to remind ourselves of what came before. Let’s once again go through Mark 16:1-8, but this time pause to look for major connections to passages that are found earlier in the gospel text.

¹ When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they could go and anoint Jesus’ dead body.

The central characters in all the gospel resurrection accounts are women. A key point to raise is that they are named in these accounts. In a time when women were devalued and literature frequently omits their names, the gospel accounts raise them up to be seen as full human beings.

The next point to note is the stated purpose of the women to go and anoint Jesus’ body. Just a few days earlier, probably about Wednesday in Bethany, Jesus was at the house of Simon. It was here that a woman had poured out outlandishly expensive perfume on Jesus’ head. When others who were there criticized this “waste” Jesus defended the woman and gave the act an interpretation that she had anointed him beforehand in preparation for his death.[1]

There was, then, two anointings that bookend the final four or so days of Jesus’ Passion account in Mark. One was for burial, but the second anointing never takes place. Rather, Sabin writes that this might correspond to the closing of the Jewish Sabbath liturgy “where the distribution of spices accompanies a prayer that the Sabbath-time will continue to hallow and sweeten the ‘ordinary time’ of the week. The liturgy for death has become a liturgy of for hallowing ordinary life.”[2]

Mark 16:2-4

Next, we read 16:2-4.

² Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they came to the tomb. ³ They were saying to each other, “Who’s going to roll the stone away from the entrance for us?” ⁴ When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away. (And it was a very large stone!)[3]

The presence of the tomb and stone recollects the story of the man possessed by an evil spirit encountered in Mark 5. Here the man is said to be living among the tombs, coming out of the tombs to meet Jesus, and said to cut himself with stones. We will return to this story in just a bit.

Mark 16:5-6

But first, let’s continue to 16:5-6.

⁵ Going into the tomb, they saw a young man in a white robe seated on the right side; and they were startled. ⁶ But he said to them, “Don’t be alarmed! You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised. He isn’t here. Look, here’s the place where they laid him.

There are several points to observe with this verse. First, the mention of a “young man” who is wearing “a white robe”. Sabin notes that in the account of Jesus’ arrest, a young man is specifically mentioned who is almost captured but leaves his linen cloth behind and flees naked.[4] She suggests that although the two are different individuals, this might metaphorically represent the rehabilitation of the disciple(s) that ran away.

The white robes also remind the listener of the appearance of Jesus during the transfiguration event.[5]

We now return to the story of the man possessed by demons. Towards the end of this narrative, he is described as fully dressed, fully sane, and sitting.[6] The kind of transformation seen in the man formerly possessed by a demon but transformed may be representative of the kind of change that occurs when people witness and experience the resurrection.[7]

Finally, we come to the reaction of the women when they see the empty tomb and the young man. They are “startled”. This same word is found in the reaction of the crowd when they witness the first exorcism by Jesus that Mark records in chapter 1. In the CEB, it uses the phrase “everyone was shaken” to describe the reaction.[8] The same word is also found when Jesus comes down from the mount of transfiguration and encounters the crowd below. The CEB uses “overcome with excitement” to translate their reaction.[9] Here the crowd has been witnessing the failure of Jesus’ disciples to deal with an unclean spirit that had possessed a boy. Based on these usages, it might be suggested that this idea of startled, shaken, and excited has something to do with overcoming dark and supernatural powers. There is also, however, a degree of uncertainty about the nature of the power that can exorcise unwanted spirits. Perhaps that is why in 16:6 the young man needs to assure the women that all is well.

Mark 16:7

Moving to verse 7 we read,

⁷ Go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you.”

As many recent commentators have noted, it is the women who are the first apostles, the ones sent to bear witness to the resurrection. A key takeaway is that the resurrection affirms the equality of all peoples: in being, in purpose, and in function.

The apostle Paul would later write to the Galatians, “All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”[10] This saying may have been a part of a very early baptismal formula.[11]

Mark 16:8

We now reach what is probably the most problematic verse, verse 8.

⁸ Overcome with terror and dread, they fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (CEB)

A more literal translation renders it this way.

⁸ They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (NASB)

“Seized”

The words “overcome” and “gripped” are found in other translations as “seized”. This same word occurs in the story of the boy possessed by an unclean spirit. He “has a spirit” is how the word is translated. One commentary observes that,

Many readers have written on the Gospel of Mark as a series of exorcisms… Jesus commands demons and spirits and illnesses to “come out” of those they have possessed, but Jesus’ baptism reads like the reverse of an exorcism. At the beginning of his ministry, while he is watching and listening and coming up out of the water, he is possessed by the Spirit and a divine “occupation” begins.[12]

When the entirety of Mark’s gospel account is considered, perhaps one of its messages is that every person is “possessed” or “has” kind of spirit or the other. No one can be entirely free of possession: the choice is of what kind.

“Trembling”

Next let’s briefly consider the word we see as “terror” or as “trembling”. This same word is found in the context of the healing of the woman who had been bleeding for twelve years.[13] It is used in describing the reaction of the woman when Jesus discovers that healing power had gone out from him. She is described as “full of fear and trembling”.

“Ecstasy”

The next word to consider is “dread” or “astonishment”. The Greek here is ekstasis. As you might guess, the English words ecstasy and ecstatic have origins in this Greek term. When we hear “ecstasy” we generally associate somewhat more positive ideas into it than dread or astonishment. The term ekstasis has some of these connotations:

Ecstasis (also spelt ekstasis) is a moment of insight; it is a moment of total immersion in being. Your inner critic goes quiet and you are dissolved in a state of awe and wonder when everything seems to click… We seek ecstasis because it is transformative.[14]

Places in Mark where this word ekstasis or a related word is utilized include: what his family thinks about Jesus, the disciples’ reaction when they see Jesus walking on the water, the crowd’s response after Jesus heals a paralyzed man, and the reaction of the people when Jesus resurrects Jairus’ daughter.[15] It is also the word used in the Greek LXX translation of Genesis 2:21 where it reads that God put Adam into a “deep sleep”. How interesting to think of the creation of woman as occurring in an ecstatic state!

“Awe”

The final word to examine is what is translated to “they were afraid”. This same word is found in the reaction of the disciples after Jesus calms a storm, the reaction of the woman who is healed from twelve years of bleeding, and the reaction of the disciples when they see Jesus transfigured. “Awe” is probably a better translation to convey the meaning of this word in these places, including in 16:8. It is not terror, but a kind of fear that inspires awe, reverence, and even silence as one tries to apprehend and comprehend what they have just witnessed.

Conclusion

Mark 16:8 combines all these ideas, which are rationally indescribable, but still tries to describe them. And I think that is one reason why literal translations have difficulties making sense of the words here. The resurrection is beyond anything that can be described rationally, using human words.

Sabin takes a stab at translating it using her own words: “And going out they fled the tomb, for trembling and ecstasy possessed them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were filled with awe.”[16]

She continues with an explanation,

So translated, this verse represents a climax in the motif of transformation. Each part of it, in fact, bears symbolic weight. The women’s fleeing from the tomb not only mirrors the change in the healed demoniac but also Jesus’ own release from the tomb. Their sense of being possessed by holy ecstasy is the reverse of possession by the devil. The word ekstasis points to the trance-like state of a new creation. Their silence is not a dumb of fearful silence; their speechlessness comes from being “filled with awe”.[17]

The gospel account is “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ”. The resurrection ushers in the beginning of a group of transformed believers of Jesus Christ. Mark’s gospel doesn’t have a strong closure because the gospel story is still ongoing. With every celebration of Easter, we are reminded that resurrection and transformation is an ongoing process. We can be possessed by divine ecstasy yet simultaneously be silent in divine awe. The empty tomb is just that: empty. It is not where we are meant to be. We are to flee from the power of death and embrace the living Christ.

Christ is risen!

He is risen!

In the name of God who Creates,

In the name of God who Lives,

And in the name of God who Breathes life into us,

Amen.

References

Cussen, J. (n.d.). Ecstasis & Catharsis: The Makers of Meaning. Retrieved from The Living Philosophy: https://www.thelivingphilosophy.com/ecstasis-and-catharsis/

Garcia Bashaw, J. (2022). Scapegoats: The Gospel through the Eyes of Victims. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

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

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

 

 

---

[1] Mark 14:3-9.

[2] (Sabin, 2002, p. Kindle location approximately 3219)

[3] I find it quite curious that this observation was left in the text. Just so future readers know that three women could not have possibly moved it by themselves…?

[4] Mark 14:50-52.

[5] Mark 9:2-3.

[6] Mark 5:15.

[7] (Sabin, 2002, p. Kindle location approximately 3227)

[8] Mark 1:27.

[9] Mark 9:15.

[10] Galatians 3:27-28.

[11] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022, p. 267)

[12] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014, p. 42)

[13] Mark 5:25-34, specifically v. 33.

[14] (Cussen, n.d.)

[15] Mark 3:21, 6:51, 2:12, 5:42.

[16]  (Sabin, 2002, p. Kindle location approximately 3272)

[17] Ibid.

Sermon: What Sort of King and Savior?

Entry into Jerusalem

Lectionary: Lent 6(B) – Liturgy of the Palms and Liturgy of the Passion

Text: Mark 11:1-25

Introduction

Praises and acclamation! Our Lenten journey is nearing the end as we begin Holy Week. It starts off with Palm Sunday and what is frequently referred to as the Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem.

The events of Holy Week contain some of the foundational elements of Christianity. So, it is understandable and good to remember it annually. But that repetition is a dilemma and difficulty for preaching, because how many ways are there to present the subject in such a way that it doesn’t get stale, and everyone stops hearing after the first few sentences?

One way of infusing life into a familiar story is to expand its context by reading beyond the supplied lection. That is what we are doing today. Frequently, sermons about Palm Sunday limit themselves to finding the donkey(s) or colt(s) and the procession into Jerusalem. Today’s supplied lection ends at verse 11, where Jesus is described as entering the temple and looking around, but leaving because it was already late in the evening. We are normally left at this point with a cliffhanger.

The Temple Incident

The main point of Jesus coming to Jerusalem is never brought up. I looked through the three-year cycle of the Revised Common Lectionary, and every year, Palm Sunday ends with Jesus entering Jerusalem but omits the next several incidents.

From our reading earlier, you now know that in Mark’s version, Jesus encounters a fig tree and then cleanses the temple the following day. Matthew and Luke follow a similar sequence. Only John offers a different narrative where the entire sequence of the temple is omitted. John also places the cleansing of the temple incident at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. John also omits the mention of a fig tree during holy week, but there is a mention of a fig tree at the very beginning, when Nathanael is encountered.

In the three-year lectionary cycle, only John’s account of the cleansing of the temple is included. And so, it is interpreted and preached away from holy week. Most current biblical scholars conclude that the cleansing of the temple occurred at the end of Jesus’ life, and that John took the tradition and moved it to the beginning of his account for his own theological reasons.[1]

The temple incident is one of the key pillars in understanding holy week and why the religious leaders demanded Jesus’ death. This is the reason why I chose to take an extended reading of the gospel to include the cleansing of the temple into the Palm Sunday sermon.

All Reading Happens through Lenses

Viewing Palm Sunday and Holy Week from the perspective of 2000 years after the event, we have an interpretation of them filtered by our lens of time. We call Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem the triumphal entry because that is how we have chosen to interpret it. We interpret Jesus’ cleansing of the temple to be a good action for the theological meanings we have given to it.

However, for the leaders and authorities in the narrative, Jesus’ actions were not good. He threatened their honor, the power structure, their interpretation of scripture and theology, and ultimately, they could see that all of this was leading to instability of the status quo and quite possibly to chaos. The Romans could tolerate quite a bit of diversity, but the one thing they did not tolerate was a threat to the established social and political order. Jesus, by challenging Jewish institutions and structures, threatened to destabilize a Roman province and that in turn would threaten Rome. The theatrical procession[2] of Jesus on a donkey with a few followers coming into Jerusalem was not as much of a problem compared to what he did at the temple.[3] But when the two happened in succession, the threat became multiplied. Many biblical scholars have the opinion that the cleansing of the temple was the final straw that led the leaders to carry out a plan to destroy Jesus.[4]

As black and white as these stories might seem to our eyes and ears, when we dig deeper into how these two stories utilize history and literary allusions, we learn that the meanings and interpretations are more ambiguous. Jesus’ actions were highly symbolic and had charged meanings to those who saw and experienced it. To understand this, we now turn to several passages from the Hebrew scriptures and post-exilic Jewish writings.[5]

Historical and Literary Contexts

Simon Maccabeus

We first turn to a text in 1 Maccabees 13. This passage describes the retaking of a fortress at Gazara and the retaking of Jerusalem by Simon Maccabeus around 142 BCE. This is the first time Israel has some semblance of political autonomy since the return from exile.[6]

⁴³ In those days, Simon camped against Gazara and surrounded it with troops. He made a siege engine and brought it up to the city. He battered and captured one tower. ⁴⁴ The men in the siege engine leaped out into the city, and a great tumult arose. ⁴⁵ Together with their wives and children, the men [of Gazara, Gentiles] went up on the wall with their clothes torn. They cried out loudly, asking Simon to make peace with them. ⁴⁶ They said, “Don’t treat us according to our wicked acts but according to your mercy.” ⁴⁷ So Simon reached an agreement with them and stopped fighting. But he expelled them from the city and cleansed the houses in which the idols were located. He then entered it with hymns and praise. ⁴⁸ He removed all pollution from it and settled people there who observed the Law. He also strengthened its defenses and built a house for himself there.

⁴⁹ Those [Syrians] who were in the elevated fortress at Jerusalem were prevented from moving around to buy and sell in the country. So they were very hungry, and many perished from famine. ⁵⁰ They appealed to Simon to make peace with them, and he did. But he expelled them from there and cleansed the elevated fortress from its pollutions. ⁵¹ On the twenty-third day of the second month, in the year 171, the Jews entered it with praise and palm branches, with harps and cymbals and stringed instruments, and with hymns and songs. A great enemy had been crushed and removed from Israel. ⁵² Simon declared that they should celebrate this day annually with rejoicing. He strengthened the defenses of the temple hill alongside the elevated fortress, and he and his soldiers lived there. ⁵³ Simon saw that his son John had become a man, and so he made him commander of all the forces. And John lived at Gazara. (1 Maccabees 13:43-53 CEB, emphasis mine)

In this description of military and political victory and restoration of the Jews, there are a few key phrases:

But he expelled them from the city and cleansed the houses…

He then entered it with hymns and praise…

He removed all pollution…

They were prevented from moving around to buy and sell…

But he expelled them from there and cleansed the elevated fortress from its pollutions…

… the Jews entered it with praise and palm branches…

This sounds quite a lot like the account of Jesus entering Jerusalem and the subsequent cleansing of the temple.

Writings from Hebrew Prophets

Zechariah

Next we turn to Zechariah chapter 14. We won’t read the entire text. It is a description of the Day of the Lord. The chapter begins with a destruction of Jerusalem, but it then goes on to describe how the Lord will fight for Jerusalem and restore it. Here are a few excerpts that contain echoes in today’s gospel reading.

⁴ On that day he will stand upon the Mount of Olives, to the east of Jerusalem.
The Mount of Olives will be split in half by a very large valley running from east to west. Half of the mountain will move north, and the other half will move south. (Zechariah 14:4 CEB)

When Jesus said, “I assure you that whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea’—and doesn’t waver but believes that what is said will really happen—it will happen,” (Mark 11:23) it is quite probable that it was an allusion to Zechariah’s text.

And one more from Zechariah and why Jesus is described as stopping temple commerce:

There will no longer be any merchants in the house of the LORD… (Zechariah 14:21)

Jeremiah

We next turn to Jeremiah chapter 7 which describes the corruption of the temple services and God’s judgment against it. In the middle of the chapter we find text that reads,

⁸ And yet you trust in lies that will only hurt you. ⁹ Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, sacrifice to Baal and go after other gods that you don’t know, ¹⁰ and then come and stand before me in this temple that bears my name, and say, “We are safe,” only to keep on doing all these detestable things? ¹¹ Do you regard this temple, which bears my name, as a hiding place for criminals? I can see what’s going on here, declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 7:8-11)

Jesus’ words against the temple contain echoes from Jeremiah.

On the one hand, Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem and the cleansing of the temple look like a reenactment of the Maccabean victory and fulfilment of earlier prophets against the corruption of religion. Those who witnessed Jesus’ actions might have seen it as Jesus coming to reform sacred institutions and cleanse the nation from foreign influences and idolatry.

Zechariah, Again

But there is another side. We first go to Zechariah (the same prophet as before) chapter 9 which describes a victorious king coming into Jerusalem after defeating her enemies. What is striking is the way this king arrives and what he does.

⁹Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion. Sing aloud, Daughter Jerusalem. Look, your king will come to you. He is righteous and victorious. He is humble and riding on an ass, on a colt, the offspring of a donkey. ¹⁰ He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the warhorse from Jerusalem. The bow used in battle will be cut off; he will speak peace to the nations. His rule will stretch from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth. ¹¹ Moreover, by the blood of your covenant, I will release your prisoners from the waterless pit. (Zechariah 9:9-11)

This king’s victory is symbolized by entrance into Jerusalem, not on a warhorse leading prisoners into the city, but on a colt. His actions are to destroy implements of war and make peace. And in the process instead of taking prisoners, he releases them.

Isaiah

We turn last to Isaiah 56. This part of Isaiah is a prophetic vision of Israel following her restoration, when righteousness and justice is returned.

​¹ The LORD says: Act justly and do what is righteous, because my salvation is coming soon, and my righteousness will be revealed… ³ Don’t let the immigrant who has joined with the LORD say, “The LORD will exclude me from the people.” And don’t let the eunuch say, “I’m just a dry tree.” ⁴ The LORD says: To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, choose what I desire, and remain loyal to my covenant. ⁵ In my temple and courts, I will give them a monument and a name better than sons and daughters. I will give to them an enduring name that won’t be removed. ⁶ The immigrants who have joined me, serving me and loving my name, becoming my servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath without making it impure, and those who hold fast to my covenant: ⁷ I will bring them to my holy mountain, and bring them joy in my house of prayer. I will accept their entirely burned offerings and sacrifices on my altar. My house will be known as a house of prayer for all peoples, ⁸ says the LORD God, who gathers Israel’s outcasts. I will gather still others to those I have already gathered. (Isaiah 56:1, 3-8)

Instead of denouncing and eliminating foreigners and others who don’t fit societal and religious boundaries of who is acceptable, here God welcomes, invites, and gathers everyone who pursues God’s ways into God’s “house of prayer.”

Conclusion

By placing multiple sources that are sometimes at odds with one another in narrating the first acts of Jesus during Holy Week, “Mark develops his narrative in typical midrashic fashion.”[7] Whereas Christian interpretations often have one “correct” interpretation (and we often become uncomfortable when there isn’t a clear interpretation), Jewish midrash may allow for multiple interpretations and perhaps none at all – only questions left for the reader to ponder.

What I do see during Holy Week are two crucial questions. They are: 1) Who is Jesus? and 2) What kind of savior do we want? Mark’s narrative continues through the week offering further narratives and teachings that develop these questions. By Friday, the dominant powers have offered their answer: Jesus is a disturber of the status quo, a threat to the fragile peace between Rome and the Jews, and certainly not the kind of savior they want.

The entry into Jerusalem and the temple incident offer two contrasting visions of what salvation looks like. The Markan narrative leaves its readers, us, pondering the questions about Jesus and what his life and values mean for us. Are we willing to follow Jesus, through imitation of his ways, and to the cross? Or would we rather settle for temporal victories in this present life? I leave you and me with these words from Jesus, found earlier in Mark:

³⁴ After calling the crowd together with his disciples, Jesus said to them, “All who want to come after me must say no to themselves, take up their cross, and follow me. ³⁵ All who want to save their lives will lose them. But all who lose their lives because of me and because of the good news will save them. ³⁶ Why would people gain the whole world but lose their lives? ³⁷ What will people give in exchange for their lives?” (Mark 8:34-37)

References

Catholic Book Publishing. (2019). Saint Joseph New Catholic Bible (NCB). Catholic Book Publishing Corp.

Garcia Bashaw, J. (2023). John for Normal People: A Guide Through the Depth & Drama of the Fourth Gospel. Harleysville, PA: The Bible for Normal People.

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

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

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

---

[1] (Lewis, 2014, p. 40), (Garcia Bashaw, 2023, p. 59)

[2] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014, p. 916)

[3] There is no mention in Mark’s account where the leadership complains about Jesus during his entry. Matthew also has no mention of the leaders’ complaints. Luke is the only one who records an explicit complaint. John’s account includes gripes from the Pharisees, but not as forceful as found in Luke’s.

[4] Mark 11:18, “The chief priests and legal experts heard this and tried to find a way to destroy him. They regarded him as dangerous because the whole crowd was enthralled at his teaching.”

[5] This next portion of the sermon relies on insights from commentary on Mark by Marie Noonan Sabin. (Sabin, 2002)

[6] Footnote c, 1 Maccabees 13:31 (Catholic Book Publishing, 2019)

[7] (Sabin, 2002, p. Kindle location approximately 1338)