Genesis 6:16-22; 9:8-15

This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary, Year 1 (Most recently Sept 5, 2015)
 
Summary:   This is a story that many "modern" people have trouble accessing.  It is a hard text for us as a pastors too.  I think the first connection point is found before this NL pericope begins, in vss 5-11, where God declares the world filled with violence.  No one living in 2014 should find it hard to imagine God's anger over the violence plaguing the world.  I don't think we need to walk away from God's fierce disappointment within this story.  This is the human condition.  Surprisingly God's wrath is absent, at least in words, from this story.  That is because God's wrath is connected with his abandonment.  This story is not about an angry God who leaves people to their own devices, but intervenes by destroying in order to bring about life.

What I wrestle with in this story is not simply the violence done by God, but the question of how eschatological to go with my sermon.  The story can be seen in light of Christ's ministry (teaching us the way of non-violence), Christ's death and resurrection (he creates a new non-violent humanity), but ultimately, Christ's next coming (he brings about a non-violent world.

I also wonder if a more personal appraoch is helpful, in that God is willing to kill us -- that within us which is hostile to him -- to make us alive.

Lastly, I would recommend reading the other flood narratives, especially the Epic of Gilgamesh.  It becomes quite clear our God is very different from other deities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlil

באה ("bo" meaning 'Go in':  6:17,18, 19):  The word, like many Hebrew words, can have a variety of meanings, ranging from "go in" to "come in" to even "bring in."  God "goes into"/"brings" the water; humans and the animals, "Go into" and are "brought into" the ark.  This is an interesting way of thinking about God's activity in Baptism, the ark of salvation (1 Peter); God destroys us in the water, but brings us home in the ark!

כל ("col" meaning 'all', repeatedly):  This word means all.  It is used throughout this section.  God's care is for ALL of creation, and one could argue, for ALL of humanity, in that we need to learn how be reborn to be less violent.

אות ("ot" meaning 'sign', 9:12)  God knows we need a sign, not just a covenant.  As the song said, "I need a sign!"

זכר ("zocar" meaning 'remember', 9:15)  The question here is -- why does God need to remember?  Perhaps linguistically we can get around this.  This verb is in the qal perfect, which means it is to be read as as imperfect, meaning incomplete action.  This can refer to future action or present on-going action.  This actually makes sense because the God of the whole heavens and earth is always shining clouds on the earth -- there is always a rainbow from God's perspective!  God is always remembering his covenant with us.

1 John 1:1-2:2

This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary Summer readings (most recently 2014).  It also occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary Easter (Year B) readings.

Separate note:  I had so much commentary, I divided this up into two posts:  1 John 1:1-4 and this post.

Summary:  This verse has a great verse (1 John 1:9) within some much more difficult verses about blood and sacrifice.  One could try to unpack the atonement theories of 1 John based on OT metaphors.  I think an easier and more helpful way is to think less about how the cross/blood/death actually accomplish this end and more what they actually accomplish.  I say this not simply because this is easier, but because I think 1 John is a study, not in the mechanics of justification, but in what forgiveness in Jesus offers us:  light, fellowship, and love.  These are juxtaposted, not with hell and wrath, but with darkness, isolation and fear, something that the people in my congregation experience all the time.

κοινωνια ("fellowship", 1.6)  This word has an intense meaning in the New Testament.  It ranges from
-  sharings of money (2 Cor 9:13; Romans 15:26; Hebrews 13:16)
-  sharings of a common spirit (2 Cor 13:13 original Trinitarian formula; Philippians 2:1)
-  sharings of Christ and his suffering (Philippians 3:10; 1 Cor 10:16)

It is a reminder that fellowship is not a diluted term in this passage or anywhere in the New Testament.  A look at the related noun κοινωνος (partner) reveals something similar.

αιμα ("blood"; think "hema" like "hematology"; 1.7)  The blood cleanses us from sin.  This is a tough one to wrap our minds around because we think of blood as very "dirty", certain not sterile and definitely not cleansing.  Is there a way to recover this ancient way of thinking of blood?

ινα ("so that", 1:9)  I remember back in Seminary one of my professors made a very, very big deal about how to translate this word.  The basic argument in this verse is that ινα cannot be translated, "with the result" and must be translated, "for the purpose of."  I do not think that argument is instructive here because there isn't a difference in God's purposes and God's results when it comes to forgiveness of the sinner.

In verses 2:1-2, Jesus is called three titles:
δικαινος ("righteous one", 2.1)  This is simply a good title for Jesus.  The question is, what does Jesus righteousness mean for you and for me?

παρακλετος ("advocate", 2.1) How Jesus and the Spirit are both called "advocates" are tough.  Interestingly, in the Gospel of John, when Jesus promises the advocate, John 14:16, he promises ANOTHER advocate, suggesting that he already was an advocate for us.

In the Gospel of John, the advocate seems more like a prayer partner, counseling us through sufferings.  In this case, the idea almost seems more legalistic, like one who is defending us before God's judgment.  Interestingly though, God's wrath is never mentioned in 1 John.  Judgment exists, but there isn't necessary a hell.  Simply darkness, isolation and fear.  Jesus seems to be reconciling us, in spite of our sins, back to the Father, back to light, back to fellowship and back to love.

ιλασμος ("atonement", 2:2) Discussing the entire meaning of atonement is well, well beyond the meaning of this passage here.  But I want to point out that this word here is the one connected to Leviticus, Romans.  Furthermore, as BDAG says about this word, "The unique feature relative to Gr-Rom usage is the initiative taken by God to effect removal of impediments to a relationship with God's self." ιλαστηριον definition.

1 John 1:1-4

This passage is part of the 1 John 1:1-2:2 readings found in the Narrative Lectionary Summer readings (most recently 2014).  It also occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary Easter (Year B) readings.  I had so much commentary, I divided this up into two posts:  1 John 1:5-2:2 and this post.


Summary:  I realize its not entirely the purpose of 1 John 1, but the events in my congregation are really making me ask myself, in light of this passage:  What is of fundamental importance that I want to pass it along to my children?  What creates community in our family?  What creates joy in me and my wife to pass this along to our children?  What is the word of Life I want them to know?

Key words/concepts
ακουω, οραω, θεαομαι, ψηλαφαω (1 John 1:1)  The verb 'to hear' (ακουω) and 'to understand/see' (οραω) are both in the perfect, while 'to see' (θεαομαι) and 'to touch' (ψηλαφαω) are in the aorist. Again, an aorist tense suggests a one time event; a perfect tense has the connotation of a past action that creates an on-going and present status.  John (or the writer from the Johannine community), by using these tenses, suggests that although the original congregation can no longer touch or see Jesus because of his ascension, but the reality of hearing and understanding the word of God remains. This perhaps is not simply true of the original congregation, but us as well. We leave Sunday having seen and even touched Jesus in the bread and wine, but as we head out, we still are in the state of hearing and understanding.

ειμι ("to be", 1.2)   In both 1.1 and 1.2, the verb 'eimi' (to be) is used in the imperfect tense. In Greek, there really is no aorist tense of 'eimi,' the 'to be' verb. (which if you stop and think, makes a lot of sense). In both cases, the verb is translated with the English aorist form of the to be verb: "was." What is probably a more helpful translation is not the static "was" but an imperfect "was being" or "was and continues to be" or "has been"  In short, the English "was" makes it sound like the event of the Word being with the Father or the Word being from the beginning is over; the imperfect tense in the Greek suggests that that the Word continues to be with the Father and continues to be from the beginning.

απαγγελλω, μαρτυρεω, εχω, γραφω (1.3-1.4) The only verbs so far in the present tense are απαγγελλω (to proclaim), μαρτυρεω (to witness), and εχω (have + fellowship), and γραφω (to write), all of our actions.

εφανερωθη (1.2) The only God verb so far is "appear" (phanero-oo); always in the aorist.

λογος του ζωης (word of life, 1.1).  I was surprised to find that there was only one other place in the Bible where we find this phrase, Word of Life:  Philippians 2:16.  1 Peter 1:23 has a similar phrase, "living word of God" but truly "Word of Life" is only found twice.  Ponder what that means if anything. 

Pentecost (Acts 2:1-11)

I want to redirect to my last year's post
http://lectionarygreek.blogspot.com/2013/05/acts-21-11.html

In a nut shell, I find the church of Acts 1 to be very common:  A deeply loving and truly faithful community that doesn't outreach.  How can the Spirit move us from Acts 1 to Acts 2?  How can we as leaders be involved in this process?

Lutheran worship really has changed

I am preaching off the lectionary this week so I thought I would share some reflections on worship:

To celebrate our 275^th anniversary as a congregation, we have been worshipping with elements from previous hymnals this Easter season.  As we’ve done this, I have been struck by how much worship has changed, especially over the past two generations.  This surprised me because I consider our church relatively traditional.  I have a great deal more sympathy for those of an older generation, who grew up using the Black and Red book, and who may struggle with elements in our worship service today.  Consider how the following elements of worship have undergone changes.

	B & R book	Today
Music
Instrument	Exclusively organ	Organ, but also piano, drums and even guitar
Hymns	Often German chorales with 4-part harmony	Many Methodist/"American" hymns, but global hymns often written for unison singing
Sacraments
Baptism	Mainly infants	People of all ages; appears more frequently in lectionary and liturgy
Confession and Forgiveness	Intense rite with conditional absolution	Unconditional absolution; perhaps no C&F, perhaps Thanksgiving for Baptism instead
Holy Communion	Handful of times per year; for confirmands	Every week; for children, some congregations Baptism optional
Participation by lay people
Role of pastor	Pastor reads, prayers and preaches	Number of people involved in almost every aspect of worship
Role of choir	Choir leads congregation; primary way to be involved	One of many ways to be involved in worship
Mood
Volume	Silence permeates worship, including before service	Social aspect of church emphasized, e.g., Passing of the Peace
Script	Stick to what is written in worship book	Pastors, even lay people, more likely to deviate from Rubric/Script, or not even use one
Piety	Inward and repentant	Therapeutic and Praise

Perhaps when commenting on piety, I come too close to offering my own diagnosis here instead of simply laying out the facts.  We cannot turn back time and I am not suggesting this.  Yet as we move forward in our congregation (and likely others as well), it is really helpful to remember that long time members of this (and other congregations) have experienced significant shifts in their lifetime of how God is worshiped in our sanctuary.  We may still have a traditional worship, but it is markedly different than the traditional worship of 1960.

John 12:12-27

This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary for Palm Sunday.  It encompasses another RCL passage, John 12:20-33.  You can find my commentary for that, here.

A brief comment here on the remainder of the passage, John 12:12-19; I find two things worth sharing.
ωσαννα:  From the NET Bible:
"The expression hosanna, (literally in Hebrew, "O Lord, save") in the quotation from Ps 118:25-26 was probably by this time a familiar liturgical expression of praise, on the order of "Hail to the king," although both the underlying Aramaic and Hebrew expressions meant "O Lord, save us." As in Mark 11:9 the introductory hosanna, is followed by the words of Ps 118:25, "blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord."  ... In words familiar to every Jew, the author is indicating that at this point every messianic expectation is now at the point of realization. It is clear from the words of the psalm shouted by the crowd that Jesus is being proclaimed as messianic king. See E. Lohse, TDNT 9:682-84."

This leads me to wonder about Messianic expectations.  The text of Zechariah 9:9 is really indicative of the expectations:  After a victorious military campaign, the Messiah will enter in an era of peace, worship of God and human flourishing.  You could say this happens in the cross.  But what a bloody battle it was...

John 19:1-16a

This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary, Year 4, Lenten cycle.  Most recently April 6, 2014.

Summary:  This text drips with irony.  The irony is intended to showcase the moral bankruptcy of the Jewish and Roman leaders, if not ultimately, the entire human race.  Pondering this text forces one to ask:  "Who are we anyway?"

ανθροπος ("human", 19:5)  The classic Latin phrase:  Ecce homo (behold the man) comes from here.  This is a sad image of "the human"; beaten and tortured, wearing his mock royal clothing.  Pilate and John seem to make a statement here about the human condition.  Who are we anyway?

πορφυρουν ("purple", 19:2).  Purple is the royal color; this exclusive dye came from snails, whose production and trade were controlled by the pheonicians.  Ironically, the very traders wore the snail down to virtual/actual extinction!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia  Again, who are we anyway?

εμαστιγωσεν ("flog", 19:1)  The Greek leaves two questions here.  First, whether Pilate himself actually did the beating (which the grammar suggests but would have been inconceivable historically).  Second, how severe was the beating?  The Vulgate, a 4th century translation, does not translate this verb in the most severe sense, although the NET suggests this should be done:
"This severe flogging was not administered by Pilate himself but his officers, who took Jesus at Pilate's order and scourged him. The author's choice of wording here may constitute an allusion to Isah 50:6, "I gave my back to those who scourge me." Three forms of corporal punishment were employed by the Romans, in increasing degree of severity: (1) fustigatio (beating), (2) flagellatio (flogging), and (3) verberatio (severe flogging, scourging). The first could be on occasion a punishment in itself, but the more severe forms were part of the capital sentence as a prelude to crucifixion. The most severe, verberatio, is what is indicated here by the Greek verb translated flogged severely (mastigo,w, mastigooÒ). People died on occasion while being flogged this way; frequently it was severe enough to rip a person's body open or cut muscle and sinew to the bone. It was carried out with a whip that had fragments of bone or pieces of metal bound into the tips."

εποιησεν ("make", 19:6) The Greek literally reads, "Because he made himself into a son of God."  Most translators take this to mean "claimed" or made in the "fashioned" sense.  But again, what an ironic assertion:  No one can make themselves into a son of God.  This comes from above as Jesus points out!

Λιθοστρωτον and γαββαθα ("lithostroton" and "gabbatha", 19:13)  First, a side note.  I find Biblical archeology fascinating because everyone is always trying to prove eveyone else wrong about what they have discovered or not.  It may be that such an insertion into John's Gospel offers a very late dating of John's Gospel.  But my sense is that such debates don't ever get resolved.

Anyway, what is interesting here is that the Greek and Hebrew (or really Aramaic) actually don't match up.  The word gabbatha speaks about the location, but Λιθοστρωτον describes the place as covered with in-laid stones.  In short, a tessellated floor.  Jesus, bloodied, yet innocent, is sentenced on a beautiful stone covered floor.

Καισαρα ("Caesar", 19:12)  For the Jews at this particular juncture to declare, "We have no king besides Caesar" is absurd.  The LORD is King.  This is irony to the point of absurdity.