Matthew 22:34-46

This passage occurs in the RCL "Pentecost"/"Ordinary"/"Proper" Season, Year A, most recently October 2023.
 
Summary:  I suppose one could go to great lengths to parse out the Greek meaning of the words, "heart", καρδια, "soul," ψυχη, and "mind," διανοια.  After discovering that they mean different things in Greek than in English you learn that Jesus wants us to...drum roll...Love God and love our neighbor with everything we've got.  This is probably not much for a sermon, but I find it comforting that Jesus wants us to love God with our minds.  In my formation and candidacy, I often internalized guilty about my intelligence as if somehow, I just needed to be a big ball of emotions to serve God.  One of my professors, Dr. Henrich, pointed out that in this passage, we are called to love God with our mind.  This was an incredible word of Gospel to me.  Intellectual exploration of God's Word is okay too!  Funny how law can be heard as Gospel sometimes...

Key words:
διδασκαλε ("Teacher", 22:36)  Thanks be to God Jesus wasn't simply a teacher, but also the savior.  However, let us not dismiss the idea of Jesus as teacher.  The word teacher appears throughout each Gospel a total of 48 times.  What can we learn from Jesus this week?  One might understand Jesus' teaching role as salvific (if we just followed Jesus' teachings, healing and life would follow); but I would like to understand it in more dialectical and unsolved relationship.  Jesus is the world's greatest teacher of human wisdom and law.  Jesus also teaches though that finally the law is not enough to save us.  However, we cannot avoid the teachings of Jesus, including when it comes to ethics.  Also, the great teachers have a passion for their subject and also a passion for their students -- Jesus literally has THE passion for his students, us.

αγαπαω ("Love" 22:37)  One can parse the word love a number of ways.  What is interesting here is that αγαπη, which is often thought to refer to divine love, here refers to neighborly love.  A reminder that in the kingdom of God, love doesn't remain on heaven, but comes to earth.

καρδια ("heart", 22:37)  In Greek, the heart is NOT the center of emotions, but of will.   

ψυχη ("soul", 22:37)  BDAG points to the broad nature of this word.  The soul is, perhaps best said, that which makes flesh alive.  The Bible will use the word ψυχη to mean more than simply "the ghostly blue vapor" of our existence.  Perhaps another way:  our essence?  Hard to nail down...

διανοια ("Thoughts" or mind, 22:37):  As I stated in my summary, I want to point out that Jesus wants us to love God with our mind.  Also interesting is that God admits fulfilling this is impossible.  In Genesis 8:21 God says that all our thoughts (διανοια) are bent on evil.  Eph 2:3 and 4:18 are similar.  Interestingly, in Jeremiah 31:33, God says he will put the law into our minds.  All this points out that not simply our "hearts," but our minds, are also a battle ground for God, a place that needs rebirth.  (In fact, this word is often translated from the Hebrew word that means "heart" because the ancient Jewish thought located thoughts in the heart).

χριστος ("anointed" 22:42).  This is a very common word in the NT.  The reason why I bring it up here is because most of our thoughts about the word "Christ" are not what the listener's in the OT would have heard.  

The word Messiah was a loaded term that encompassed the deepest hopes of ancient Israel for the one through whom God would bring fulfillment of long-standing promises.  The challenge is that people living in Jesus' day understood differently how God would do this (although there was probably less disagreement about the end result).  There was certainly a faction that believed the Messiah would be a military leader who would overthrow Herod.  But this was not universally understood in this way.  Regardless, no one was articulating the idea that the Messiah would be a crucified rebel.

The spiritualization of this role is not  New Testament development.  That Jesus came to "take us to heaven" is a much later development.  All first century Jews, including Paul and Jesus, would have understood the Kingdom of God as heaven breaking into earth, rather than us escaping earth to get to heaven.

Grammatical review:  "Hendiadys"
A Hendiadys is a very fancy way of saying "using two words to mean one thing."  Literally from the Greek:  "One through two."  An example of this might be from Genesis 1:  "Formless and void."  They both essentially mean the same thing.  Put them together and you get:  "A whole lot of nothing." 
In this particular passage, we have a hendiadys typical of the New Testament: 
ο νομος και οι προφηται (22:40)

The law and the prophets.  This is the NT way of referring to the Old Testament.  Sometimes they will include the Psalms, but more often, just these two sections.  So Jesus isn't simply saying, "All of the commands and words of the prophets hang on these two commandments" he is saying, "the whole Bible that you know of depends on this."

Innovation is not Transformation

In this post, I am going to focus on the leadership failure I see within churches: the inability to form leaders to be transformers of culture, not simply administrators or innovators.  My sense is that I am describing a phenomenon occurring across industries, in that we prepare people to implement best practices or experiment with the newest trend, but we do not prepare them for the frankly spiritual task of transforming culture to integrate new practices into existing systems.  If you are not involved involved in a church, I welcome your input on how you see this playing itself out in your field (you may be able to skip point #1).  If you are involved in a church, I welcome your pushback on what I am missing.

Point #1:  Most churches are in need of more than simply "a few more young families" but wholesale transformation.

Point #2:  We have prepared leaders to adopt best practices or experiment with the newest trend.  This will not lead to transformation.

Point #3:  Changing culture is linked with reforming best practices and embracing new business models, but requires a different approach and character.

Therefore:  If we want to see the transformation of existing churches, we will need to speak more openly about culture change and design systems to equip and sustain leaders for this kind of change.

Point #1:  Most churches are in need of more than simply "a few more young families" but wholesale transformation.

Subpoint A:  Most churches, even when clamoring for growth, do not want change, or at least, real change.

Most churches, especially those within mainline denominations, are experiencing decline.  We could reveal this using all sorts of metrics.  Typically when you ask people within these congregations how they can move forward, the answer is something like:

• We need more X:  young families, kids in Sunday School, money in the bank
• We need cooler Y:  a praise band, screens in worship, less formal vestments
• We need social change Z:  Prayer back in school, no sports on Sundays, Wednesday night church time 

To put it in terms of a business, the people within declining congregations typically look for change in one of three ways

• We want customers who used to like to return to us
• We want to employ practices of firms whose skill set is entirely different than ours
• We want society to bring back the time when consumption of our products was supported.

Perhaps I am framing this too uncharitably or setting up an unfair strawman!  I admit I've thought and said most of these things over the years.  Furthermore, wanting a praise band or less formal worship style may be helpful in some contexts.  Many congregations would be helped significantly by cosmetic and incremental changes.  Lastly, at least some such comments acknowledges that some sort of internal change is necessary.  Yet I have almost never heard a congregation say: "In order to stop this decades long trend of decline, the way we've done things must fundamentally change, which will require our hearts to be transformed by God's Word and encounter with our neighbor."

Subpoint B:  In the Bible the church grew because it underwent a transformation grounded in prayer and study of the word.

In the book of Acts, the church grows rapidly.  It did not have great marketing techniques.  It did not have a culturally sophisticated worship style.  It enjoyed no cultural advantages.  Yet somehow, this group of Galilean peasants launches a movement that transforms the entire Roman Empire.  Obviously the Spirit leads the transformation; let's take a closer look at what happens:

• A group of fairly inward looking, yet very pious Jews living in Jerusalem (Acts 1) spend time in prayer waiting for the Holy Spirit.  They are overcome by fear and joy at the cross and resurrection.
• The Holy Spirit comes and blows them out of their comfort zone and they are transformed into an open faith community that welcomes Jews from all over the world (Acts 2).  
• They spend time listening to God, each other and the neighbor (Acts 2). 
• They preach and embrace the reality of rigorous discipleship as preached earlier by Jesus (Acts 2-5)
• As the community grows, they must address internal growing pains (Acts 6) and external social pressure (Acts 8).  
• Finally, they are led to preach and find Jesus outside of their city (Acts 9 and 10).
• This culminates in official "doctrine" of the church codifying a new way of engaging the outsider (Acts 15) in a way that forever orients the community toward the broader world and paves the way for incredible expansion.

I realize that one could summarize the first half of the book of Acts differently, but it is fair to say that the growth of the church happens as a result of the insiders undergoing a change of their hearts to embrace new people, new practices and new policies.  We cannot expect congregations (or firms or non-profits) to grow, after years of decline, without undergoing such a similar transformation of their hearts. 

Point #2:  We have prepared leaders to adopt best practices or experiment with the newest trend.  This will not lead to transformation.

Subpoint #A:  The American church grooms its leaders into one of two types.  My sense is that there is something similar within the business world that happens.

We tend to foster future congregational leaders to have a chaplain and/or innovator mentality.

- Chaplains:  People who are excellent at providing care within their settings.  Many of these people also have strong skills in administration and equipping of others for the care-giving task.  When it comes to leadership, these people can be very wise at setting up processes to ensure broad participation.  They also tend to be people who can get "into the weeds" and are willing patiently to address concerns people have.  They can study best practices at other churches and will implement once they perceive that the kinks have been worked out.

- Innovators:  People who have no time for shifting deck chairs on what they perceive as the sinking Titanic called the church of the Western hemisphere.  They want to seed new ministries that will help reach out to the ever-growing number of people who have tuned out or are turned off to formal religious expression in the USA.  They likely have a love-hate relationship with the churches and denominations they are in and lots of other leaders are bit jealous, terrified and yet hopeful for them.  Denominations often shine a spotlight on the ministries of innovators because they show great promise in their infancy and hope that others can adopt what works from these inventors.  When it comes to leadership, they thrive in "adaptive" leadership, that is, situations in which they are willing to experiment, fail and try again.  

For those familiar with the terms technical and adaptative change, I am arguing that we produce pastors who are ready to implement technical change and/or adaptive change.  Technical change is a change in which the problem and solution can be identified and implemented beforehand.  Adaptive change is a chance in which the problem and solution can only be discovered by trial and error.  For example, a technical change might be moving a choir rehearsal from Wednesday night to Sunday afternoon to acknowledge that the aging choir does not like night driving.  An adaptive change might be experimenting with models of integrating youth into adult ensembles after years of separate youth choirs.  The adaptive change likely requires a number of iterations to get it right.  The technical change likely works, if it is well communicated and those effected are on board.  Adaptive change, even when well communicated and with the supportive of stake holders might not work.

Subpoint #2:  This will not lead to transformation.

To be clear, I believe we need congregations to engage in adaptive leadership.  We need innovation as the existing model isn't working.  However, innovation is not transformation.  I argue that successful innovation requires transformation.  To put it another way, adaptive change requires cultural change.  For example, let's say that we start having youth work with adult choirs  This starts changing the whole way a congregation things about youth no longer as a silo (the dominant way of thinking for nearly two generations).  What kind of possibilities or push-back does this produce?  In order for youth to sing with adults, this is not simply going to require some changes in scheduling, but a change in heart of how people in the congregation relate across generations.  It might also require the congregation to break down barriers it had around style of music to find something that works for all ages.

Another example:  We started worshipping outside during COVID.  This blossomed into a favorite part of our congregation's life.  Now we have people from the neighborhood who will not join the main group of people for worship, but will sit outside of their apartments and listen from a distance.  We have been very slow as a congregation to embrace or reach out to them.  Why is this?  We innovated by adding outside worship.  Yet our culture still says the people that matter are the people whose butts are in front of the pastor on a Sunday morning.  What culture shift will be required by us to view those worshipping from a distance as part of us?

Point #3:  Changing culture is linked with reforming best practices and embracing new business models, but requires a different approach and character.

Culture change is not something that just happens.  It actually requires

• Time in prayer and study, listening to God, each other and the broader world
• Identification of culture change that is desired by leadership
• Implementation of technical change to support that culture change
• Openness to adaptive change that this makes possible 
• Leadership to hold strong when resistance is encountered

Going back to the example of the outside worship, we have generally a culture that is open to others entering into our space, but likely expects them to come into our space.  It will require leadership to recognize this as a challenge and lean in.  However, it will also require technical change - we need to, for example, knock on their doors the week before summer worship starts, invite them and then make bulletins available to them.  But it may also lead into adaptive change.  What happens when some of those folks start coming to worship and bring their hearts, concerns and stories of faith?  It will also come with a pushback - "Why are we printing bulletins for people that don't pay in" or other such possible comments.  (Frankly, I don't believe my congregation would say that, but I wanted to give an example of this). 

However, it should be noted, that if we hadn't gone through a huge culture shift - worship does not need to happen in our sanctuary - which was built on lots of technical changes - how to make worship outside work - we wouldn't be in a position to engage in adaptive change around engaging the stranger who does not come into our circle or our building.  We needed the confidence of the successful move outside to begin the experimentation with our neighbors in this apartment complex.

Here is my summary of these three types of change

	Types of Change
	Technical	Cultural	Adaptive
Changes	Processes	Values	Clients
Addresses	How	Why	For Whom
Builds on		Technical Change	Cultural Change
Who must be consulted	Existing end-users	Whole community; Stakeholders	Audience outside/on-margins of system
Takes	1-3 meetings to decide	5+ years to accomplish	3-5 years to prepare
Communication stops	Once new process accepted	Once new value accepted	Once new community accepted
To find solutions	Ask "end-users"; Examine best practices in industry	Align practices with values	Try stuff that builds on your existing skill set
To succeed	Follow transparent process and communicate	Ensure leadership is linked to endure pushback	Develop capacity for failure
Stance toward mistakes	Eliminate them	Forgive People	Embrace them
Leaders must be...	Thoughtful	Enduring	Innovative
	Attending	Listening	Dreaming

Therefore:  If we want to see the transformation of existing churches, we will need to speak more openly about culture change and design systems to equip and sustain leaders for this kind of change.

To put this all together, I was educated in how to be a chaplain and how to be an innovator.  But I was not equipped for the long-hard, gut-wrenching practice of changing culture.  This really is a spiritual task because it does not simply involve failing, but it involves interacting with people whom you love with whom you find yourself in disagreements.  More painfully, the disagreement may seem about technical change, but underneath, it is about culture change, and typically masking a great deal of grief about culture and loss of identity within a community.

If we are serious about revitalizing congregations (and this is actually an if), then I think we will need to equip ministers far-differently, preparing them to lead transformations of cultures within congregations so that they can eventually guide congregations in the messy process of figuring out how they can be the church for the next generation in a very different world than the one these congregation arose out of.

Lastly, I realize that any congregation who is in decline has heroic expectations on their pastor.  (This was a glaring and intentional omission under point #1!)  Congregations  (and companies!) clamor for a leader this younger and yet more experienced, more caring yet more bold, deep and inspiring, and of course a traditionalist innovator.  Impossible, right!  I wonder though, how many say out loud, "We want a pastor who will change our hearts to embrace others outside the community who are different than us!"  If you ever find a congregation that says this, take the call right away.

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 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!

Matthew 10:40-42

This passage occurs as a RCL "Pentecost"/"Ordinary"/"Proper" Season, Year A, most recently June 2023. 

Summary:  We are familiar with the Great Commission of Matthew:  Go therefore...  This week we hear the Least Commission:  We are sent to do small things to the least of these.

Key Words
αποστειλαντα ("send" aorist participle of αποστελλω 10:40)  Perhaps you might be familiar with the phrase or concept:  "The sending of the Trinity."  This idea develops out of verses like this one:  The Father sends the Son; who sends the Spirit; who, along with Jesus, sends the disciples.  This motif is most recognizable in John (John 3:16 for Father sending son; John 14:26 and 15:26 for the sending of the Spirit; John 20:21 for Jesus sending the disciples.).  Luke also has Jesus indicating that he was sent:  "Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" (10:16)
a)  Trinitarian thinking is deeper in Matthew (and the other Gospels) than we often give credit. 
b)  The idea within the Trinity is a procession of sending is not simply a later construct.
c)  Even in Matthew's Gospel Jesus equates action done to him as action done to God. 

This ties also back to Matthew 10:5 and the sending of the disciples by Jesus.
δεχομενος ("welcome" present participle of δεχομαι; 10:40).  This word can also mean accept (See Matt 18:5).  Instead of accepting Jesus, you need to accept your pastor, who stands in line of the apostles :-)

μισθος ("wages" or "reward" 10:41,42)  I am not sure what to make of it, but Matthew uses this word way more than the other Gospels.  Perhaps Matthew aims at the working class, who would be well aware of the reality of wages and rewards?  For the most part Matthew is telling others that they already have their reward or that they will not get theirs!  In this case though, Matthew quotes Jesus offering a promise:  If you welcome a prophet, you get your reward; if you give a small cup of water, you also gain your reward.  The question remains, what is the reward?

προφητης ("prophet" 10:41)  Worth noting:  For Matthew, the notion of prophecy is very important; the word appears 34 times.  By comparison, in Mark the word only appears 5 times!  Luke 28; John 14.  (While OT connections are important for Matthew, Luke doesn't leave them out)

μικρων ("least of these" from μικρος 10:42).  This phrase is often understood to mean "children."  This is because in Matthew 18 Jesus explicitly connects the phrase little ones with the word for children.  Also, Jesus says, "Who welcomes children, welcomes me" in all three synoptics.  So, it is probably a fair translation to say, "children" here.  However, I think that Matthew 25 and "Do unto the least of these" are helpful to keep in mind as we examine this passage.  Jesus is always concerned about the least in society, of which children are an example.  I'd rather leave the translation as the "least of these" instead of "children" to leave open this ambiguity.  As a side note, some manuscripts use the word "least" that is found in Matthew 25 (ελαχιστος).

Grammar Review:  ου μη
In Greek the strongest denial of a possibility is ου μη.  It probably best means "It ain't never ever gonna happen."  Whenever you see this, you can know the speaker is completely and totally sure about something.  In this case, we will never lose our reward when we give a cup of cold water to the least of these.

Romans 6:12-23

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, Year A.  It appeared most recently in June 2023.

Summary:  Paul reminds everyone that the freedom we have in Christ is not to pursue our own pleasure, but to serve him.  A preaching thought in 2023.  Paul gets "preachy" here about how the wages of sin are death.  My sense is that when we preach this prescriptively, it fails on deaf ears.  Worse, we likely know people who have been beaten up, if not abused, for their perceived sinfulness.  Yet, when we speak to someone who has wallowed in their sin, it becomes a very different matter.  They know their actions led to death.  

To summarize:  I have met people abused by others because they demanded to repent; I have also met others who came to the conclusion that their current path was death.  In short, I think this passage will never lose its descriptive truth, but I struggle with how might one work this passage prescriptively.

Words worth exploring:

ζωντας (participle form of ζαω, meaning "living", 6.13)  The Greek packs a bit more punch than the English here.  Paul says that we are "from death-living."  The English translations typically make the living seem like a past activity.  Paul commends us that the living continues.  The death is what is in the past!

οπλα ("instrument", 6.13)  The word can mean a variety of weapons and instruments.  For all the other Civilization computer game fans -- this is where the word "hoplite" comes from.  Interestingly, a hoplite military unit was based on using your shield to protect others in the formation.  Paul here commends us to present ourselves as instruments...used in battle for the protection of others.

παραδοθητε (from "παραδιδημι", meaning betray or handover, 6.17)  This word can mean handover, as in betray, or handover, as in tradition.  In this case it means that the Roman Christians were handed over something from other Christians.  A reminder that we did not discover Christianity on our own, but received it from others!

τυπον διδαχης (τυπος and διδαχη, meaning "figure" and "teaching", 6:17)  This word literally means "form of teaching."  First, Paul does not really use the word "teaching" a great deal; although other Christians would pick up on the word διδαχη and call teacher a διδασκαλος.   So what is Paul referring to with teaching?  It is meaningful, I believe, to consider the combination of "form" (τυπος) and "teaching."  τυπος means a mold or a form.  The teaching of Paul was not simply of the head, but included a way of living, of conforming our lives to Christ.  This is clearly presented in Philippians 3:17.

Philippians 3:17-21   Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example (τυπος) you have in us.  For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears.  Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things.  But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.  He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.

ελευθερωθεντες (passive participle of ελευθεροω, meaning "free", 6:18)  This word means to free.  For Americans, we hear freedom as the right to do what we want.  For Paul, freedom means the ability to do what God wants.

αγιασμον ("sanctification", 6:22)  Sanctification often is seen as an individual journey toward holiness.  But Paul's whole argument here is about a movement away from the self, toward Christ and others.  Sanctification, it would seem, is about becoming useful to God, not becoming 'holy' in the abstract.   

I realize there are two big strands of holiness thinking:  personal morality and corporate usefulness.  I do not wish to say the two are unrelated or opposed.  I just think most American Christians emphasize the former at the expense of the later.  In fact, for many, these two may seem like entirely different concepts.  A short example connecting the two.  Paul writes later in Romans (14:17)

"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit"

This might seem like righteousness is about personal choices around food and drink.  Yet, in this case, Paul is writing about the need of some members of the community to abstain from certain food and drink for the sake of the neighbors.  Personal morality and communal usefulness are always related.

υμων/ημων - (yours/ours)  Just a reminder that throughout this section, Paul uses plural pronouns.  This is about "all y'all's" sanctification.

Also...
χαρις ("grace", 6.17)  Little play on words here; typically translated as thanks, but it is literally "Grace to God!"