Category Archives: Lent

Who are the Samaritans?

Posted on by
Reply

This coming weekend is the 3rd Sunday of Lent. In the previous post we refreshed our understanding of the encounter between Nicodemus and Jesus as a prelude to the encounter with the Samaritan Women.

In John 4:4-42, Jesus’ ministry enters a new stage. He leaves the confines of traditional Judaism and turns to those whom his Jewish contemporaries reckoned as outsiders and enemies: the Samaritans. The breach between Jews and Samaritans can be traced to 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel withdrawing from the throne of David in Jerusalem upon the death of King Solomon. They formed a competing confederation building a new capital city and a new temple (Mt. Gerizim), claiming that this was the true place of worship of God. To the people of the south (Judah) they were traitors and heretics. 

When the Assyrian Empire conquered the north some 200 years after the division (721 BCE; see 2 Kings 17), there was likely little sympathy in the south. But it was 500 years later that the rivalry intensified when the armies of Judah marched north and destroyed the Temple at Gerizim. It did little but to deepen and inflame the divisions as witnessed in John 4:9: “For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans.”

When Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at the well, he meets someone who stands in marked contrast to all that has come before in this gospel. When Jesus spoke with Nicodemus (3:1-21), he spoke with a named male of the Jewish religious establishment, a “teacher of Israel.” When Jesus speaks to the Samaritan woman, he speaks with an unnamed female of an enemy people.

This long passage of the encounter at the well consists of two main blocks of conversation (vv.7-26, Jesus and the Samaritan woman, and vv.31-38, Jesus and his disciples) surrounded by their narrative frames. The structure of the text can be outlined as follows:

4:4-6 Introduction: Jesus’ arrival at the well
4:7-26 Conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman
4:27-30 Transition: Arrival of the disciples and departure of the woman
4:31-38 Conversation between Jesus and his disciples
4:39-42 Conclusion: Jesus and the Samaritan townspeople

Christ and the Woman of Samaria | Pierre Mignard, 1681 | The North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh | PD

The Samaritan Woman at the Well

Posted on by
1

This coming weekend is the 3rd Sunday of Lent in lectionary cycle A. The gospel account is that of the Samaritan Woman at the well (John 4:4-52). It is a long passage and on several days there are two posts. In addition the Tuesday and Wednesday posts are fairly lengthy because St. John has just packed so much into the telling of the encounter. Today’s post is going to provide some context. I’d suggest that while the story stands on its own, it is best read with an eye toward the story that precedes it: Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus. It then stands as bookends framing the whole of Jesus’ ministry even as it is positioned at the beginning of the Johannine telling of the story of Jesus. So, before moving ahead let us review the encounter with Nicodemus so that we understand the deep contrasts between these two protagonists.

Nicodemus was a Pharisee (3:1) and a “teacher of Israel” (3:10) a moniker from which we can infer a number of things: he was Jew by birth, married, and the head of rabbinic school. He was not “the man on the street.” He was someone who was particularly familiar with Scripture and the traditions of Judaism. While within the official ranks of Judaism there was likely already great concern about Jesus because of the incident of the cleansing of the Temple (John 2). Was he another would-be-claimant to the title Messiah whose campaign would only bring the harsh response of the Romans? One suspects their judgment was negative, but it seems Nicodemus was curious – but cautious, and so he approaches Jesus under the cover of darkness (3:2). In John’s gospel, a weak, wavering or incomplete faith emerges from the night or darkness. Nicodemus has been attracted by Jesus’ signs, an attraction not to be despised, yet he remains at a distance from true faith. 

A dialogue ensues, animated by ambiguity and the potential for misunderstanding; a particular feature of Johannine stories. Jesus tells Nicodemus: ““Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born ańothen.” (3:3). I deliberately left the Greek ańothen in place because the word has dual meanings: “again/anew” or “from above.” In American Christianity which so often opts for “from above,” they lose the nuance of the exchange and the inherent choice being offered to Nicodemus.

The expression “born again” has a context and meaning in Judaism of Nicodemus’ day. One is born again when one converts to Judaism, comes of age, is married, crowned a king, ordained a rabbi or becomes the head of a rabbinic school. Nicodemus has done all these things (that pertain to him) and hence the question: “How can a person once grown old be born again?” There is no achievement or milestone left for him and hence the follow-on: “Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?” (3:4). Nicodemus apparently does not consider that he is being offered the choice to be born from above. He cannot understand who it is before him and what he offers: two choices, earthly (again) or heavenly (from above), Nicodemus seems to only understand the earthly choice; he does not understand that “without being born of water and Spirit” he will not have eternal life in the kingdom. Nicodemus is being asked to let go of all he knows/believes to be true in order to be “reborn” but from above. 

The expression “born again”  is a slogan, a rallying cry, and a test – “Have you been born again.” It is a short-hand to reduce the contemporary Christian experience to a sound bite. While the phrase has its merits, it is also taken out of the context of a much more nuanced dialogue. It flattens the word ańothen to only be connected to an individual’s private moment of conversion. As Gail O’Day notes, it privileges anthropology over Christology. It is the mistake that Nicodemus makes in not grasping the decisive Christological meaning of ańothen – the source of the change: the cross. And in doing so lose the emphasis of the newness of life possible for which there are no precedents. To approach the text of the Nicodemus story already assured that one knows the meaning/translation, is to repeat the experience of Nicodemus.

To approach the text of the Samaritan women already assured that one knows the meaning is to miss an encounter with Jesus that leads her to the newness of life. But then she is a Samaritan. She is a woman. What could she possibly understand that would elude Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel? The answer lies in the telling of the story.

Christ and the Woman of Samaria | Pierre Mignard, 1681 | The North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh | PD

A Reflection

Posted on by
Reply

Annemarie Reiner (of Adelaide, Australia) posted this reflection on the Transfiguration on her blog “Who Do You Say That I Am.”  It is a very nice reflection to consider in this Lenten Season.

When we look at our Gospel today we can understand why daily reflection is so important. These three disciples (and the rest of them) didn’t get who Jesus was until well after his death. They didn’t understand what had happened at the transfiguration. They didn’t understand what was happening as they witnessed Jesus’ life. They didn’t understand what was happening at the crucifixion. But they kept pondering their experiences over and over – if they didn’t we simply wouldn’t have the New Testament.

So what do we learn from this?

Every human life is filled with experiences from when we get up until we go to sleep and even in our sleep we experience our dreams. What do we do with these experiences?

Mostly we ignore them and then we forget them. Even the profound moments that come into our lives, we can shut the depth of their meaning out. We might have gone through a depression – do we take the time to ponder the meaning of this depression in my life or do I just think: thank God that is over and then fill our lives with all sorts of other distractions and then wonder why down the track I fall into another bout of depression?

I might have experienced walking with a loved one who has been sick and has died. Do I sit back and reflect upon the experience or is it too difficult to re enter this painful period, so we try and shut it out hoping it will go away.

I might have experienced a deep hurt. Do I ponder the experience considering my own reactions and responses to the hurt or do I totally throw blame on those who hurt me without any self reflection? So I become the victim in life and I go from one lot of blaming to the next without any examination of my own heart.

I might have deeply hurt someone myself. Do I take the time reflect upon my behaviour (even if it is down the track from the experience) so as to be confronted with what I have done. Or do I just keep running away from this self disclosure because it s too painful?

There are numerous life experiences that we all have. Many of these experiences are profoundly mysterious. Sadly many of them become buried and we lose the richness these experiences can offer us. Not only this but we now have multi million dollar industries offering all sorts of therapies etc to help people cope with the results of their non reflective lives.

Someone once said that a non reflective life is a life not worth living. It might be more accurate to say that a non reflective life is a life not lived – it is life rejected.

Jesus invites each of us to this holy mountain today. It might be shrouded in mystery – we may not have much of an idea who Jesus is yet – we may be confused by the experiences of life and feel lost – but Jesus says to us today to come with him. To trust him. To have faith in him. To keep thinking about our experiences but to do this with Jesus at our sides.

When we have the courage to come to the mountain with Jesus then we too may see something beyond our imagining. When we truly see Jesus transfigured (see Jesus as he truly is) then the life that Jesus offers us will begin.

A large part of the problem is that we really don’t see who Jesus is. Jesus can become our own creation – a feel safe, feel good guy that we call upon when it suits us, and we try and mould Jesus to be what we want him to be. If we truly believed in Jesus we too would not know what to say, we would be frightened, but we would hear God saying to us: Listen to him. And even in all our blindness and ignorance all we would truly want would be to Listen to Jesus – we would hunger for Jesus – not the Jesus of our own making, but the Jesus who stands before us as mystery. Can we accept such a mystery?

We, the Body of Christ must also be transformed just as Jesus was transformed – but this cannot happen until we come to this mountain in all humility. Then the horrors our world is currently experiencing may begin to fade and the light will truly shine in the darkness.

In the coming week let us pray for the desire and will to come to the mountain that Jesus invites us too so that we may encounter the true mystery before us and then ponder for a lifetime its meaning for ourselves and the whole of creation.

Image credit: Sunrise, Simon Berger, Pexels, CC

John and Elijah

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 2nd Sunday in Lent. In yesterday’s post we considered Peter’s response of offering to make three tents – one for Jesus as well as Moses and Elijah. Today, we listen to Jesus’ instructions to the disciples as well as his probing for their understanding of what they have just seen: “As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, “Do not tell the vision to anyone until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” Then the disciples asked him, “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” 

The disciples have just experienced the Transfiguration and heard Jesus’ prediction of his death and Resurrection – and then the disciples ask about Elijah.  It may well seem an awkward shift in a conversation, but v.10 is not merely responding to v.9, but looks back at all of 16:13-17:9, portraying the advent of Jesus as the eschatological event, as the Messiah/Son of God who fulfills his ministry as the rejected and dying Son of Man, who will be vindicated by God at the resurrection. The disciples, who know already of Jesus’ identification of John as Elijah (11:10, 14), voice the objection of the scribal opponents of Matthew’s church to the Christian claims: How can the Christ have come already, since the Scripture says that Elijah must come first (Mal 3:23-34)?

In short, Jesus’ response is that Elijah has already come in the person of John the Baptist (vv.12-13). What is sometimes confusing is “Elijah will indeed come and restore all things” (v.11)  Hadn’t Elijah/John already come? Boring offers four suggestions (365):

  1. The future tense simply reflects the quotation from Malachi,
  2. The future tense may reflect the scribal expectations rather than Jesus’ own understanding,
  3. While Elijah/John had come the restoration in its fullness is still a future event
  4. More likely, the future restoration of all things has already begun in the advent of John the Baptist.

That Elijah had already come is an important declaration. The understanding that Elijah has not yet come will appear again in this gospel (16:14, 27:45).  Elijah/John is paralleled to Jesus:  he was sent from God, was opposed and killed by members of the kingdom of this world, was Messianic in that he was the forerunner of the Messiah.  And as it was with John, so with Jesus – this generation failed to recognize him because they were persuaded by the kingdom of this world.  Beginning with John/Elijah, the disciples are forming the new citizenry of the kingdom of God.

Image credit: Sunrise, Simon Berger, Pexels, CC

Peter’s Response

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 2nd Sunday in Lent. In yesterday’s post we looked at the theological elements of what Matthew likely intended in recounting the event. Today, we consider Peter’s response: Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”

As in 16:13-20, Peter again responds, again without a full understanding.  Consider Peter’s proposal to make three tents (skēnḗ; also “booth” or “tabernacle”). What did he intend? It has been variously understood as traveler’s hut, the “tent of meeting” where God spoke with Moses outside the camp (Exod 33:7), a more formal tent used in the Festival of Booths (cf. Lev 23:42–43; Zech 14:16ff), and even as the Jerusalem Temple tabernacle.  It is this last image that Matthew may have in mind as background – notwithstanding Peter’s intention.  It is the Temple tabernacle where the Shekinah, the fiery cloud that symbolized the continuing presence of God among the people, dwelt over the ark of the covenant.  The response to Peter’s proposal is three-fold (Boring, 364)

  1. The heavenly cloud of God’s presence appears, as on the tabernacle of Moses’ day and the later Temple. As of old, the heavenly voice comes from the cloud, and the God who had previously spoken on Mount Sinai only to Moses speaks directly to them. The heavenly voice speaks in exactly the same words as at the baptism (see 3:17), confirming the identity and mission of Jesus declared there, and confirming the confession Peter himself had made in the preceding scene (16:16).
  2. Although three transcendent figures are present, the heavenly voice charges the disciples to hear Jesus. As in the Shema (Deut 6:4), “hear” carries its OT connotation of “obey” and is the same command given with regard to the “prophet like Moses” whom God would send (Deut 18:15; cf. 13:57). The disciples fall on their faces in fearful response to the theophany, as in Exod 34:30; Dan 10:9; and Hab 3:2 LXX.
  3. Jesus comes to them (only here and 28:18 in Matthew, another parallel between this scene and the resurrection appearances) and touches them, and they see no one but “Jesus alone.” To focus all attention on Jesus and to distinguish him from Moses and Elijah, who have now disappeared, Matthew subtly rewritten Mark so that the word alone might stand here as the emphatic closing word of the scene. The heavenly visitors depart, but Jesus stays—Jesus alone. Without heavenly companions, without heavenly glory, he is the “tabernacle” (skene), the reality of God’s abiding presence with us (cf. 1:23; 28:20). The disciples descend from the mountain into the mundane world of suffering and mission, accompanied by Jesus, God with us.

“Coming down from the mountain” corresponds to going up the mountain in 17:1 and rounds off vv. 1-9 as a complete scene. Jesus’ calling the event a “vision” (only so in Matthew) does not imply the modern contrast between subjective experience and objective reality, which reduces the event to the disciples’ subjectivity. Jesus raises no questions about the reality of the event. Rather, the designation “vision” relates the event to the visionary/apocalyptic tradition, as has 16:17 (cf. Dan 8:16-17; 10:9-12, 16-19). The mention of the Passion/Resurrection as the end of the scene is not an expression of the messianic secret, as in Mark, but it reminds the disciples of all the barriers they themselves have experienced in believing Jesus as Messiah will suffer and die.  If they have had such problems comprehending and trusting Jesus’ revelation to them, then how much more so will others have trouble believing the good news.  Yet, it will be from a post-Easter perspective that others will be called to identify themselves with the disciples in the story.

Also laying in the background, another lesson each disciple, good and faithful Jews, needed to absoirb was that as great as Moses and Elijah were, each was only God’s servant, not his Son (3:17). Moses was the prototypical prophet, but he spoke of Jesus as the definitive eschatological prophet whose words must be heeded (Deut 18:15–19). Elijah’s ministry courageously stood for the law of Moses, but Jesus as the definitive teacher of that law brings it to its ultimate goal (5:17–19). 

Image credit: Sunrise, Simon Berger, Pexels, CC

The Transfiguration

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 2nd Sunday in Lent. In yesterday’s post we considered the event of the Transfiguration itself. In today’s post we look at the theological elements of what Matthew likely intends in recounting the event: And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light.  

The Transfiguration is a familiar account appearing in all three synoptic gospels. Perhaps it is  too familiar and thus we are tempted to accept it and not stop and consider the significance of it.  A limited number of modern scholars describe the narrative as a misplaced story of Jesus’ resurrection, his second coming, his heavenly enthronement, and/or his ascension. In other words, Matthew inserted/retrojected a story here for his own narrative purposes.  Under such a provision lies some misgivings about miraculous and extraordinary events.  But should we really have been surprised by the events of the Transfiguration and their location in the Matthean narrative?

The transfiguration of Jesus is an amazing event but not totally unexpected for Matthew’s readers. After all, Jesus had a miraculous birth, and his ministry began with the divine endorsement of his heavenly Father at the River Jordan baptismal scene (3:17). Jesus had done extraordinary works of compassion, demonstrated power over nature, and had taught the Law with an authority that was above and beyond any earthly authority. He had demonstrated supernatural power by feeding thousands of people with a few loaves of bread.  Thus, Jesus’ transfiguration seems consistent with all that has been revealed so far in the gospel.  Among the many things Matthew has narrated, we know this: Jesus is the Son of God, the fulfillment of Old Testament patterns and predictions, and he has promised a future Kingdom – a Kingdom whose proclamation and promotion will face continued conflict in Jesus’ remaining time as well as during the ministry of the disciples.

The account of Transfiguration echoes what has come before it in Matthew’s gospel and points to what is still to come.  Consider the following:

  • The transfiguration story recalls the baptism of Jesus and the voice from heaven designates him both the powerful Son of God and the weak suffering Servant (cf. 3:17). This commission is reconfirmed as Jesus begins to instruct his disciples on the meaning and cost of discipleship (16:24–28). Thus it is important that the scene follows the first passion prediction, confirming from heaven what had been questioned by Peter (16:23).
  • The transfiguration story recalls and confirms Peter’s confession (16:16). Although Peter was divinely inspired to confess, he still did not seem to grasp the full significance of that revelation. The transfiguration is its own witness to the fullness of the revelation.
  • The transfiguration story connects the confession of Jesus as Son of God and Jesus’ self-identification as Son of Man who suffers, is killed, and is vindicated by God, and will appear as judge at the parousia
  • The transfiguration is a momentary uncovering of the Son of God’s own intrinsic glory, which has been temporarily veiled and will be revealed again at the resurrection and ascension (John 17:4–5, 24; Phil 2:5–11; Col 1:16–19; Heb 1:1–4).  The transfiguration story anticipates the events of the Resurrection.
  • The transfiguration is an integral part of Matthew’s high Christology and his eschatology. It authenticates both Jesus’ divine identity and God’s plan to occupy this world and rule it forever. 

By the transfiguration, the disciples were given a glimpse of not only who Jesus is but also what he will one day bring to this world (see 2 Pet 1:16–18). Moses and Elijah are important figures, but they are not the main actors in the redemptive drama the disciples witness. As the scene ends, Moses and Elijah have exited, and only Jesus remains in the center of the stage. The “listen to him” of the transfiguration will become the “teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you” of the Great Commission (28:18-20)

And thus the transfiguration has significance for us. It gives us a glimpse into our destiny. Transformation begins already in this life. Seeing the glory of the Lord in the Spirit, the disciples are reminded that they were created in the image of him whose glory they see (2 Cor. 3:18). This is not mystical deification but a recovery/re-recognition of the divine likeness. It takes place in the ministry of the Spirit. It is not for an elite few but for all Christians. It is not just a hope for the future (cf. 1 Cor. 15:44ff.) but begins already with the Resurrection and the coming of the Spirit. It carries with it an imperative: “listen to him.”  A significance of the transfiguration is that we obtain a glimpse of what we are and are becoming.  As St Irenaeus famously said centuries ago:  “The glory of God is the human person fully alive.”

Image credit: Sunrise, Simon Berger, Pexels, CC

Teaching Disciples

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 2nd Sunday in Lent. In yesterday’s post we reviewed the theme of conflict which is a recurring theme throughout Matthew’s gospel – a conflict which is building heading toward the events of Holy Week, a week in which the faith of the disciples will be sorely tested. In today’s post we consider the event of the Transfiguration itself.

Matthew 17:1-13 is an instructional session for all the disciples – note that in v.10, Peter, James and John have joined the remainder of the group. Just as the preceding scene (16:13-28) juxtapositions the divine transcendence of Peter’s confession of Jesus as Son of God based on a revelation from heaven (16:17) with Jesus’ own teaching about the suffering Son of Man, so also in this scene the confession of the heavenly voice is juxtaposed with Jesus’ self-confession as suffering Son of Man.

The description of the Transfiguration is brief—just the first three verses of Matthew 17. But the incident becomes the context for two significant incidents for the disciples. 

  • In the first, Peter’s hasty response to the glory of the Lord (…make three tents) is corrected by the same heavenly voice heard at Jesus’ baptism (17:4–8; cf. 3:17). 
  • In the second, Jesus once again forbids the disciples to make him known (cf. 16:20), which leads to their question about the future coming of Elijah (17:9–13). 

Jesus answers their question cryptically in terms of a past coming of “Elijah,” and when he compares his own future suffering to what has happened to this “Elijah,” the disciples finally grasp that he is speaking of John the Baptist. Thus, the passage contains the transfiguration proper (17:1–3), a lesson on the fulfillment by Jesus of all that is promised in the Hebrew scriptures (17:4–8), and a lesson on the continuity of John the Baptist with Elijah of old and with Jesus himself (17:9–13).

Image credit: Sunrise, Simon Berger, Pexels, CC

Controversies leading to the mountain

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the 2nd Sunday in Lent during Lectionary Cycle A. The Lenten readings have their own pattern. Regardless of the Cycle, the reading of the 1st Sunday in Lent is one of the Temptation in Desert accounts. The account of the Transfiguration is proclaimed on the 2nd Sunday of Lent, while the following three Sundays each reveal something about the covenant or salvific mission of Jesus. The sixth Sunday is always the Palm Sunday/Passion Sunday account.

The “Transfiguration” is the traditional gospel reading for the 2nd Sunday in Lent and is taken from Matthew 17. Jesus and his disciples are no longer in Galilee – they have withdrawn to the area of Tyre and Sidon (15:21).  But they have not escaped on-going conflict with different sectors of secular and religious life.  Conflict is one of Matthew’s key themes which occur throughout the gospel. This key motif moves the plot and portrays the struggles involved in the advance of the Kingdom (cf. 11:12). At the outset of Matthew’s story, there was conflict between Herod the Great and the infant Messiah just born in Bethlehem (ch 2). John the Baptist announces Jesus and conflict arises between him and Israel’s religious leaders over genuine righteousness (3:7ff). Satan himself tries to tempt Jesus to gratify his human needs and accomplish his messianic mission in ways that were disobedient to the Father (4:1–11). 

Once Jesus’ public ministry began, his teaching about righteousness in the Sermon on the Mount clashed with that of the religious leaders (5:20–6:18), and the people were quick to pick up on the contrast (7:28–29). This led to further, more intense controversies about the forgiveness of sins (9:1–8) and Jesus’ associating with sinners (9:9–13). His ministry of exorcism led to the Pharisees’ charges that he was collaborating with the devil (9:34; 12:22–24). Soon he had to warn his followers that their ministries would be attended with much opposition (10:16ff; cf. 24:9). 

Many of the people who heard Jesus’ teaching and saw his miracles did not repent and follow him, and he denounced them for their unbelief (11:16–24). The rules of Sabbath observance occasioned a heated dispute (12:1–14); and after that, skeptical religious leaders with evil motives asked Jesus for a sign (12:38; cf. 16:1–4). Jesus’ parables of the Kingdom of Heaven also spoke of conflict engendered by varying responses to the message of the Kingdom (13:19–21, 38–39). Even the people in his own synagogue in Nazareth did not believe in his message (13:53–58). Jesus’ teaching about inner purity clashed with the Pharisaic tradition of ritual purity through washing hands before meals (15:1–20; cf. 16:5–12). 

Yet Jesus draws the good from the conflict: he prepares his disciples for mission (Mt 10) and for leadership following his own eventual departure – and the conflict they will face during their ministry.  A key aspect of that preparation is that the disciples clearly know the identity of Jesus. This is made clear in Matthew 16:13-21 when Jesus asks his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is…But who do you say that I am.”

With Jesus’ identity confirmed among the disciples, their formation continues. R.T. France refers to the section surrounding our gospel readings as “Private Ministry In Galilee: Preparing The Disciples” and outlines it as follows:

A. Teaching on Jesus’ mission (16:21–17:27)
i. First announcement of Jesus’ suffering and death (16:21–23)
ii. Discipleship will also involve suffering (16:24–28)
iii.A vision of Jesus’ glory (17:1–13)  ⭠our reading
iv. The power of faith (17:14–20)
v. Second announcement of Jesus’ suffering and death (17:22–23)
vi. The question of the temple tax (17:24–27)

B. Teaching on relationships among the disciples (18:1–35)
i. True greatness (18:1–5)
ii. On stumbling-blocks (18:6–9)
iii. Care for the ‘little ones’ (18:10–14)
iv. ‘If your brother sins …’ (18:15–20)
v. Forgiving personal offenses (18:21–35)

At the beginning of Mt 19, Jesus and the disciples return to Judea.

Image credit: Sunrise, Simon Berger, Pexels, CC

Never Forget

Posted on by
1

And sin entered the world. In the second reading, St. Paul is pretty clear that sin entered the world through Adam and Eve. Did you ever stop to think about what exactly was the first sin? Maybe it is as simple as disobedience. “The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die.” (Gen 2:6-7) That seems awfully clear… lots of trees, lots of fruit, help yourself, but not from that one tree. Awfully clear and awfully tempting. We get to listen to Eve’s thoughts as Satan tempts her: “The woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for gaining wisdom” (Gen 3:6) I suspect I had many the same thoughts when as a child, I stood before the open refrigerator door staring longingly at the last piece of key lime pie – so good, so pleasing to the eye… and there was mom talking from the next room, “Have a piece of fruit. It’s good for you.” You can guess how that story ends. In my case, it was clearly disobedience, but I am not so sure about Adam and Eve.

Satan is not holding up the most awesome piece of fruit ever known to humankind. Satan is holding up the possibility that Adam and Eve can be something other than what they are – that they are not exactly adequate or secure in their present state. Satan is tempting them to not trust God and long for something they are not. “God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods” (Gen 3:5) And there it is “be like gods.” There is the temptation. Maybe the sin is forgetting who they were, who they were created to be – stop trusting God. And sin entered the world through the first Adam.

The Gospel opens with the second Adam (as St. Paul often refers to Jesus.)  Immediately following Jesus’ baptism in the River Jordan, the Spirit leads Jesus into the desert. This is no Garden of Eden, there is no abundance of fish, fowl, and fruit – there is hunger. And there is Satan. Sa’tan, the ancient word for “tempter” – and Satan is doing what Satan does. He is not here to get Jesus to be disobedient to his heavenly Father, Satan wants Jesus to be something other than what his Father has sent him to be. Satan wants Jesus to trust a new plan, not the one his Father has established to bring new life to the world.

“If you are the Son of God…”  Interestingly, an equally good translation is “Since you are the Son of God…” There’s no doubt Satan knows who he is dealing with. “Since you are the Son of God and you are hungry, turn these stones into bread. In fact, turn all these stones into bread, because it is not just you who are hungry, the whole world is hungry. They are hungry for food, hungry for leadership, hungry to follow the One who will lead them to the kingdom. Think about it.  As bread, wouldn’t these stones be good for food and pleasing to the eye?”  

At this point this Satan dialogue should sound oddly familiar to a conversation in the Garden of Eden.

“OK, how about this… let’s go to Jerusalem, to the highest tower on the Temple, where everyone can see you, and since you are the Son of God, let the people know. Throw yourself off. Make it spectacular and when the angels come to catch you, then everyone will know and follow you. Isn’t that what your Father wants? For everyone to follow you?  Come on… work with me! I can make you great!” It is the same old tactic, forget who you are – trust your own plans rather than God’s plan.

But Jesus remembers who he is. Jesus is the one baptized in the Jordan, who arising from the water hears God say, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” (Mt 3:17) This is Jesus who is like us in all things but sin. This is Jesus who shows us how to navigate these temptations – by remembering who we are and whose we are. Because once we don’t remember who we are and whose we are, we’ll do all kinds of things to dispel the insecurity that attends this life and to find that sense of security and acceptance that is essential to being happy. We’ll begin to trust our own plans. We will begin to trust ourselves more than we trust in God.

At every temptation Jesus resists, not simply by quoting Scripture in general but by quoting Scripture that reminds him of God’s trustworthiness, the need to depend on God for all good things, and consequently of God’s promise to care for him and all God’s children. This is what Adam and Eve forgot.

Here at the beginning of Lent, these readings ask us to remember who we are. So, let me remind you. You are the beloved children of God. You are beloved sisters and brothers to Jesus. You are the ones who at your baptism were claimed for Christ by the sign of the Cross. You are the ones, in your baptism, anointed to be priest, prophets and kings in this world. You are the ones who this past Wednesday, again claimed your inheritance, your family legacy, your baptismal right as you again wore the sign of the Cross on your forehead. And you remembered to whom you belong. You are the beloved of God.

There are lots of temptations in the world – some bright and shiny as that original apple – but the real danger are the subtle messages and whispers that seek to invite you to forget you are and to whom you belong. 

You belong to Christ.

You are beloved.

Never forget that.

Amen.

Image credit:The Temptation in the Wilderness, Briton Rivière (1898) | Public Domain

All this I will give to you…

Posted on by
Reply

This coming Sunday is the First Sunday in Lent. In yesterday’s post we considered the second temptation. Today will move on to the third: 8 Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, 9 and he said to him, “All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me.” 10 At this, Jesus said to him, “Get away, Satan! It is written: ‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.’” 

The view from the mountain recalls Moses’ view of the promised land from Mount Nebo (Deut. 34:1–4). The devil’s dominion over all the world, implied here and explicit in Luke 4:6, is stated also in John 12:31 (cf 2 Cor. 4:4; 1 John 5:19). France (2007, 135) considers that Satan’s offer is mere bluff and bluster – or did in fact Satan have some dominion over the world?  Several times in the NT Satan will be described in such language, e.g., “ruler of the world” (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 6:11-12; 1 John 5:19; Rev 12:9-17).  The gospels seem to take for granted that Satan does have such power but that is always seen within the ultimate victory of God.

Ironically it was this very dominion which Jesus had come to claim (Dan. 7:14; cf. Matt. 28:18), and the resulting contest was fierce. The devil was not too subtle in seeking to avoid the conflict by asking for Jesus’ allegiance. Nonetheless, it provided a crucial test of Jesus’ loyalty to his Father, even where it meant renouncing the easy way of allowing the end to justify the means. 

Israel had fallen to this temptation again and again, and had renounced their exclusive loyalty to God for the sake of political advantage. At the entry to the promised land the temptation met them in an acute form (Deut. 6:10–15; Jesus’ reply quotes v. 13). But the true Son of God cannot compromise his loyalty, and sharply dismisses the devil, using now for the first time the name which reveals his true purpose, Satan, ‘the enemy’ of God and of God’s purpose of salvation.

There is only one answer: The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve (Dt 6:13 – with an implication of v.14: You shall not follow other gods). Nothing more need be said and Satan is dismissed curtly leaving no doubt about who is in control.  Unlike Luke, Matthew does not say that Satan’s withdrawal is temporary, but as is clear in narratives that follow there are other encounters with the demonic ahead.

Angelic help arrives…

The angelic help of Psalm 91:11, which Jesus refused to call for illegitimately (vv. 6–7), is now appropriately given. Ministered implies particularly the provision of food, and again the experience of Elijah seems to be recalled (1 Kgs 19:5–8). The lessons of the period of hunger have been well learnt, and God’s messengers break the fast that Jesus himself would not break (vv. 3–4).

Final thoughts…

Boring (165) raises an important question and provides some good answers:

Is Satan language passé? The interpreter’s first question today may be whether there is still a place in our thinking for images of Satan, especially since such images can be abused by a literalism that uses “the devil made me do it” as an escape from personal responsibility and that brands its opponents as tools of the devil. Yet, language and imagery of the demonic played an important theological role for Matthew, and it can continue to do so for us. Such imagery provides a way of acknowledging the reality of an evil greater than our own individual inclinations to evil, a supra-personal power often called “systemic evil” today. Another valuable aspect of such language is that it can prevent us from regarding our human opponents as the ultimate enemy, allowing us to see both them and ourselves as being victimized by the power of evil. 

Perhaps too quickly we readers consider this passage as a model of “resisting temptation” of greed, lust, and other sins of the earthly realm.  In reality, it is a deeper model of discipleship that is on display. The temptation is to misuse Scripture and our gifts for ourselves and our own will and ambition.  We are tempted to do our own will rather than the Father’s. Unless the LORD build the house, they labor in vain who build. Unless the LORD guard the city, in vain does the guard keep watch. (Psalm 127:1)

Image credit:The Temptation in the Wilderness, Briton Rivière (1898) | Public Domain