Matthew 16:21-28

This passage occurs in the RCL, year A (most recently Sept 3, 2023).
 
Summary:  Whatever one does, we shouldn't water down this passage.  It is harsh.  As I reflect on it this year, I am really struck by the tenses of the verbs, that "deny" and "pick up" are aorist or one-time events, yet follow is a present, or on-going event.  This suggests to me, with a Lutheran understanding of Baptism and vocation, of a life-long cross that we inherit in our Baptisms, the cross of service to our neighbor.  We are always following Jesus, discovering what this cross entails.  It looks different, but it is always the same -- care of our neighbor.   Lastly, I think the good news for me is actually found in the next story, the transfiguration.  We get overwhelmed by the cross but then Jesus opens our eyes to his glory -- and we can carry on.

Some words I'm chewing on:

διεκνυειν (-υμι, "show", 16:21)  Although it is translated as 'explain' it has a more visual sense.  See the following examples.

• "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us" (John 14:8, Phillip to Jesus)
• "...show yourself to the priest" (Luke 5:14, Jesus to a Leper)
• "He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready..." (Mark 14:15, Jesus to disciples)
• "The devil ...showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor..." (Matthew 4:8)
  

This makes me wonder -- how was Jesus communicating the necessity of the cross?  Is the rebuke of Peter part of the lesson?

ιλεως ("merciful", 16:22)  This is a fascinating word here.  Perhaps you recognize "eleison" as its sibling?  Anyway, Peter is saying, something akin to "Forgive you, Lord" or "God be merciful."  He is not saying, "Never!"  He is saying that Jesus' prediction is antithetical to God's purposes.

οπισω ("behind", 16:23,24)  This word appears twice:  'Get behind me Satan' and then 'if you want to come behind me'.  The second time its often translated as follow, yet its the same word.  Either we are left behind or we get behind him.

απαρνησασθω ("deny", 16:24) and αρατω ("pick up", 16:24)  What I have always struggled with here is that these verbs are in the aorist tense, which suggests a one-time event.  Does this mean we should move toward a decision/one-time event understanding of faith?  Keep reading...

ακουλουθειτω ("follow", 16:24) this is in the present tense.  We are to pick up the cross one time, but then continue to follow Jesus are whole lives?  Rather than understand this to mean that we make a one-time decision to follow Jesus, I argue we need to re-think what Jesus means by cross here.  When I think of picking up my cross, I think of my baptism.  The cross given to me in a my baptism confers on me the life orientation of living a disciple.  In my life, this same cross -- living as a disciple -- unfolds in different ways, always through service to the neighbor.   It is always the same cross-  dying to myself and to the world, but it looks different -- patiently bearing the criticism of others, apologizing to my colleagues when I am wrong, listening to my neighbor whine, potty training my daughter and so forth.  In life, we don't get one particular cross, one challenge to bear, but the whole weight of our neighbor's needs is ever upon us.

To put it another way, the cross of life should weigh upon us so heavy that we call out to Jesus for mercy and forgiveness.  And he then can carry the cross for us.

Later note:  I realize that in writing this blog post years ago I was trying to preserve this Lutheran teaching on the Holy Spirit and Baptism:  That we do not make the decision for Christ and that life is a daily process of dying and rising.  I still confess this.  I think you can get there from this Bible passage, especially when one looks at the whole "character arc" of Peter.  In preaching this passage now (2023), I would likely make less a big deal of the verb tenses and lean into the action itself - deny.  How are you, or I or anyone denying themselves in a culture that preaches, teaches and lives self-fulfillment.  How are you, I or anyone actually denying our quest to craft our own identity in all sorts of things rather than the cross?  I would avoid domesticating the law here with theology...

σταυρον ("cross" 16:24)  Just a quick reminder that before we get to sentimental about cross, this was an ancient capital punishment device.  We need to make the cross abstract to make sense of it (ie, we don't need to nail wood planks and walk around with them); but we if make it too abstract we lose the challenge of it.

ψυχη(ν) ("soul", 16:25)  This word is very tricky to translate.  The NET Bible offers a good reflection:

The Greek ψυχή (psuchē) has many different meanings depending on the context. The two primary meanings here are the earthly life (animate life, sometimes called “physical life”) and the inner life (the life that transcends the earthly life, sometimes called “the soul”). The fact that the Greek term can have both meanings creates in this verse both a paradox and a wordplay. The desire to preserve both aspects of ψυχή (psuchē) for oneself creates the tension here (cf. BDAG 1099 s.v. 1.a; 2.d,e). Translation of the Greek term ψυχή (psuchē) presents a particularly difficult problem in this verse. Most English versions since the KJV have translated the term “life.” This preserves the paradox of finding one’s “life” (in the sense of earthly life) while at the same time really losing it (in the sense of “soul” or transcendent inner life) and vice versa, but at the same time it obscures the wordplay that results from the same Greek word having multiple meanings. To translate as “soul,” however, gives the modern English reader the impression of the immortal soul at the expense of the earthly life. On the whole it is probably best to use the translation “life” and retain the paradox at the expense of the wordplay.  NET Bible: Matthew

πραξιν (-ς, "actions", 16:27)  While Jesus may call us to set out mind of things of God and not "of people" (vs. 23), we are evaluated on our "praxis."  Praxis means "business" or "actions", what we actually do.  The godly life then, does not consist of other worldly activities, but activities in this world that somehow involve God.  What might that mean for you?  For your congregation?

Romans 12:9-21

This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary, Year A, most recently September 3, 2023.

Summary:  When I did a Bible study on this portion of Romans with my folks, they were less interested in the Greek and more interested in the challenging ethics of loving your neighbor.  The Greek adds color but doesn't challenge the cruciform ethics that are laid out here.

Key Words/Concepts:

η αγαπη ανυποκριτος:  "Love is sincere" (Vs 12:9)  Paul does not include a verb here, simply "The love sincere."  Since the whole section is exhortation, it seems permissible to translate it "Let love be sincere."  But Paul is also stating something:  THE Love is without hypocrisy.

ανυποκριτος ("sincere", 12:9)  This word literally means no-hypocrisy.  A hypocrite in Greek was an actor wearing a mask on stage.  Love should not wear a mask!

Side note:  The word hypocrite has a fascinating meaning in Greek.  Hypo means under.  The Greek actors wore masks; they were "under" the mask.  But why the word "crite"?  This is really curious.  This word (from κρισις) means "judgment."  The actors were giving their judgement; their interpretation as they acted.  They were the under-mask-interpreters! 

κολλωμενοι (passive participle of κολλαομαι, meaning "cling", 12:9)  The verb here for "cling" is in the passive, literally "be clung." Although BDAG suggests this is a passive verb that can be translated in the active, perhaps we once again have a case where Paul threads the needle of agency between us and God.  

Also fascinating to think about another Pauline use of this word:  The one who unites (κολλωμενος) himself with a prostitute...(1 Cor 6:16)  Paul really is calling us to cling to the good!

Paul uses three words related to φιλος, which means love (typically in a friendly way)

φιλαδελφια (philadelphia, 12:10)  This word means sibling love, sometimes called "brotherly love"; although given that its feminine, one could argue it is sisterly love just as much!

φιλαστοργοι (philastorgos, 12:10)  The fourth Greek word for love, στοργη, is rare in Scripture.  It means family love, typically of parents and child.  It is fascinating then to compound it with φιλος.  Love your friends in a family way!

φιλαξενια (philaxenia, 12:13) Sometimes translated hospitality, it means something greater than this:  love of strangers or even love of foreigners.  I think most churches do hospitality well, which typically means welcoming like people.  But loving the stranger, this is tougher.  It is interesting that Paul combines this with striving (διωκω), acknowledging, it seems, that this is hard and much be sought after.

προηγουμενοι (particle form of προηγεομαι, "out do", 12:10)  The NRSV renders this verb as "Out do one another (in showing honor)."  The verb has a strong connotation of leadership and thus could also have the sense of "take leadership in showing honor."  This might be helpful words at a wedding, reminding a couple to take the lead in showing honor!

ζεοντες (participle of ζεω, meaning "zeal")   This word Paul uses for "zeal" or "fervor" literally means to boil over. (Same verb as in Job says his heart is like new-wine skins, ready to burst)

Matthew 16:13-20

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year A, most recently Aug 23, 2020.
 
Summary:  This passage of Peter's confession has a number of familiar theological words that I try to unpack a bit.  I think a good intro for a sermon is the setting of the story, Caesarea Philippi, home to all sorts of crazy, pagan, awful stuff.  It can be easy to look at our world, even our country, even our community, and feel overwhelmed and disgusted.  Even at those times our job as a church is to confess Christ, in and out of season, whether it is popular or not.  What is our confession?  It is that he is the Christ, the anointed savior, son of the living God.

Idea for a children's sermon:  the whole fish, Ι-Χ-Θ-Υ-Σ, i-ch-th-u-s, thing (Jesus Christ God's Son Savior) as the most basic confession.

Note:  Overtime I tried to add in content based on NT Wright's helpful and extensive research on first century understandings of what it means for Jesus to be "Son of Man" and "Messiah."

καισαρειας φιλιππι (Caesarea Philippi, 16:13):  This town is not a coincidental mention.  It was a trading hub, located along some major land routes.  It had been associated in the past with Baal (OT Canaanite god) and Pan (Greek god).  In Jesus day, it was one of the Roman capitals in the area, with immense building projects undertaken by Herod, including the construction of a temple in honor of Augustus.  In fact, city's temple to Pan was believed to be located at the gates of Hades, a direct connection to the underworld.  Philippi epitomized the Greco-Roman religious milieu of the day: a pantheistic cult that continued to give more space to emperor worship; above all, a worship of beauty, sex, power and money. 

One can go even further though and think about the extent to which these are all not simply dead gods, but gods of death.  At the main temple in Caesarea Philippi, which was a temple believed to be the gates of Hades, people would offer dead animal sacrifices  (http://www.generationword.com/Israel/caesarea_philippi.htm good pictures!).  Hence the importance in Peter's confession that God is a living God! 

If you want to go even further, you can study more about what worship of Pan actually entailed, but now we would have an adult only sermon.

υιος του ανθροπος  (Son of Man 16:13).  As Christians we instantly recognize this title to refer to Jesus.  In fact, we often look at this title as one that uplifts Jesus as the pinnacle of humanity.  That he was the pinnacle of humanity is not arguable; but what exactly does this mean?  In the Old Testament, this particular title for an individual or humanity seems to suggest humanity's weakness:
- What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? (Psalm 8:4; See also Psalm 144:3)
If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes, how much less man, who is but a maggot-- a son of man, who is only a worm!" (Job 25:5-6)
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? (Numbers 23:19)
God also calls Ezekiel the Son of Man a number (80?) times; it is a way of reminding Ezekiel he is not divine.  In short, to Bible calling Jesus the Son of Man ascribes both majesty but also humility to Christ.  (I even checked with Wikipedia to see if I was missing something here; in fact, its article emphasizes my point about this title and humility.)

χριστος  (Christos, Messiah, 16:16)  Christos is Greek for anointed.  In Hebrew, the word for anointed is Messiah.  Peter is calling Jesus the Messiah.  The Old Testament strongly associates Messiah with a king, in the line of David, one who leads and protects the people.  

- The idea seems to be that a Messiah is a divine talisman, in that he has special protection (1 Sam 26:23; Psalm 20:6).  

- Interestingly, in Leviticus (4:6 eg) the High Priest is also referred to as the "anointed" or "Messiah."  

- Furthermore, Isaiah in chapter 61, declares himself anointed for his vision, hence prophet could also be understood as the role of the anointed (Psalm 105:15 connects this as well).  

As Messiah then could be understood to capture three offices:  king, priest and prophet, which matches up with Calvin's understanding of Christ and his offices.  

While Calvin and other theologians have tried to clarify what "Messiah" means, it is helpful to remember that various first century Jewish groups had their own understanding of the word.  Different factions within that society had different senses of what a Messiah would be like and what the Messianic age would entail. It can helpful to avoid statements like:  "All of the Jews expected X out of a Messiah."  Consider Christians today -- do we all have a common vision for what the return of Christ will look like?  While I will try to summarize some thoughts on what this term meant, I do so aware that this term had a variety of meanings.

If there is any common theme for first century understandings of Messiah, it would be a theme of conquering.  While Kings, priests and especially prophets may suffer, there seems a much stronger note of victory, even theology of glory, surrounding this term.  As NT Wright puts it:  "Everyone knew that a crucified Messiah was a failed Messiah." (p. 230, The New Testament and Its World.) This would explain why Peter so soon afterwards does not want Jesus to suffer!  (In short, Peter knew his Old Testament!).  It also shows a great contrast with the term son of Man! 

I would also add that NT Wright does a great job of unpacking the Jewish understanding of "son of man" and "messiah."  In his mind they work together, in that the Son of Man refers to Daniel 7 and comes with hopes of Israel's redemption over the foreign and invading empires.  While even Wright admits the Daniel 7 is bit more ambiguous of a connection, he helpfully demonstrates the Jewish people of the 1st century had very earthly hopes.  They all wanted an end to their situation as a puppet regime of Rome; they may have understood this happening in different ways, but ultimately, it was for the same reason.  In short, no first century Jew would have said:  "I want the Messiah to come, die in a humiliating fashion, be resurrected and then promise us that if we follow him, we will die and then enter into a non-earthly eternity with God that will include lots of non-Jews."  The Messiah was to bring about the new reign of God on earth, which included the vindication of Israel (p. 234, The New Testament and Its World).

πετρος /πετρα Petros Petra:  We've all heard that Peter's name means Rock, because he was the Rock on which the church would be built.  Both words clearly have a the same first few letters (Petr), but I am not sure if we must necessarily infer that Peter the person is what the church will be built on.  Beyond some linguistic oddities (Petra is a feminine noun and ends in an a, nothing like Peter's name's ending), the far more logical thing is that the church will be built on the confession, which comes from heaven.  I think the Bible really underscores this by showing Peter's misunderstanding just a few sentences later. Luther writes a sermon delving into why this passage is about the confession of Christ and not Peter's person.

αδης hades:  See my blog post on words for hell in the Bible.  http://lectionarygreek.blogspot.com/2012/09/mark-938-50.html

Grammar note 1:  Verb tenses -- when Jesus asks the disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" the verb is in the imperfect, noting a repeated action.  Jesus continually asks and continues to this day to ask:  Who do you say that I am?

Grammar note 2:  In the infinitive phrase "Who do you say that I am" the word "I" is in the accusative (me).  Why?  Because in the subject of an infinitive clause is in the accusative, not the nominative.

Matthew 15:21-28

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year A, most recently in August 2023.

Note:  My post for this passage grows out of a session of Summer Greek I helped teach at United Lutheran Seminary on August 18, 2017.  So exciting to help future pastors see how Greek can impact their preaching.  I definitely learned a great deal from them.  This post also reflects the events that happened in August 2017, when there was a violent White Supremacy rally in Charlottesville, VA.  Unfortunately, Donald Trump's words following this event threw gasoline on the oldest fire in America: racism.

Summary:  Most times I would preach on the woman's faith and the dynamics of prayer. I would wrestle with Jesus reluctance to be a God of mercy and justice for her; was Jesus sense of mission changed by this and other interactions?  I really don't think so, but wow, this is a tough passage!

This year though, based on events in our nation, my attention is drawn to the disciples and their unwillingness to speak on behalf of the needy.  I see their hardness of heart as the primary objective of Jesus' healing.  Ultimately, in order for the church to be a place big enough for Jews and Gentiles, the Jewish followers of Jesus are going to have to accept Gentiles.  As the book of Acts and Paul's letter to the Galatians shows, this is a long road.  In short, I see this story beginning with #ShePerisisted and ultimately turning into #JesusPersisted because he is willing to walk a long, long path with his disciples to open their eyes to God's mercy.  To draw it back to today's context, I see a lot of people really hesitant to listen to the cries of the voiceless.  This is our call and struggle as a church, to move from #ShePersisted to #WePersisted in that as a church we begin/continue to speak for those who are voiceless.  We can do this because #JesusPersisted for you and for us, forgiving our hardness of heart and opening our heart to the depth of God's love.

Key Words:
Related to Jesus
εξελθεν (from εξερχομαι, meaning "go out", 15:21)  and ανεχωρησεν (from αναχωρεω, meaning "withdraw" or "depart", 15:21):  By using both of these verbs in one sentence, Matthew really draws out that Jesus wants to get away.  Perhaps this reflects Jesus' own need for Sabbath; Since John's beheading, he has continually had a desire for a break.  I think many people these days are overwhelmed by world (and not just personal) events and want to get away and take a breather!

λογον (meaning "word", 15:23)  It is quite remarkable that the word incarnate does not have a word for this woman!

απεσταλην (perfect form of αποστελλω, meaning "send", 15:24)  Given the importance of this verb in the New Testament (and in Christian theology) it is an incredibly powerful statement.  As it is presented here it sounds cruel rather than compassionate.

ιαθη (from ιαομαι, meaning "heal", 15:28)  It is interesting that Matthew uses this particular word here for "heal"; only two people are "healed" (as indicated by ιαθη) in Matthew's Gospel.  The other one is the Roman Centurian's youth (see 8.8, 8:13), another pagan youth whose parent/guardian must plead on their behalf.  I am not sure if I would want to analyze what kind of healing then is associated with ιαθη as opposed to other verbs, but I find it interesting that Matthew links these two stories.  Also interested is that the only other citation in Matthew's Gospel of this verb is a link to an Isaiah 6 passage where God basically declares that God will not ιαθη Israel...

While such a discourse is likely beyond a sermon, this passage is all about healing -- who is really healed?  The girl of course, but what about her mother?  (seems safe to say yes).  What about the disciples?  There is a rift between these two groups that needs to be healed and this is ultimately the work of Christ.

Related to the woman
καναναια ("Canaanite", 15:22)  This is the only time in the New Testament we see this word, although it is very common in the Old Testament.  It is worth noting that Mark describes her as a more generic pagan, but Matthew opens up the door to an ancient blood fued by using the word Canaanite.

εκραζεν ("cry out", 15:22,23)  The word for cry out comes into Enlgish as "crazy."  She literally went crazy!  What is most significant here is that the verb is in the imperfect tense, which describes on-going action.  #ShePersisted.  She kept and kept crying out.

ελεησον με κυριε  (15:22)  Her cry here is just about the perfect liturgical cry: Kyrie Elision.  Just as we so often begin worship and later with multiple chants of this, she begins her worship (the passage indicates, yes, she did worship) with multiple chants of this.

κυριος ("Lord", 15:22,25,27)  It is fascinating to see the way in which "Lord" shows up in this passage.  She calls on Jesus as Lord.  In the Septuagint, the translators would translate YHWH as Kurios.  So, here is she picking up on the ultimately proper Jewish prayer, giving her bold confession of faith, calling Jesus both God and son of David?  Or is she simply using the word in Greek to mean "master."  In short, should we translate this as "lord" (generic term of respect) or "LORD" (translation of ancient name of God).  This starts to get at the nature of her faith -- does she really know this is God?  Does she have a bedrock faith in a God of justice and mercy?  Or is she really grasping at straws?  Can we ever tell with faith in crisis?

Note:  I do not know what to make of the plural use of this noun in verse 27.  Perhaps one could maintain that it adds to the confusion about her intentions.

Related to the disciples
ηρωτουν (from ερωταω, meaning "ask", 15:23)  This verb is also in the imperfect.  The disciples keep asking Jesus.

απολυσον (from απολυω meaning "send away", 15:23)  This harkens back to the feeding of the 5,000, when the disciples ask to send away the multitude!