Commitment
Commentary
A pastor receives a telephone call from a person who is on the church roster, but who rarely attends worship except on Christmas and Easter, or to borrow tables and chairs for spring family party events. The matriarch of the family tells the pastor that her daughter wishes to get married in the church with the full use of the sanctuary, fellowship hall, musicians, and dressing rooms. The pastor checks the dates on the calendar to “buy time” and listen for more details. As the mother proceeds to lay out her vision for the wedding ceremony, she informs the pastor that the couple wishes to write their own wedding vows. They see this as “their day” to celebrate in the church. The pastor provides some “pushback” and reminds the mother that this church does worship services which glorify God. The wedding service is indeed a church service in which the couple seeks the blessing of the community of faith. The pastor also insists that s/he will add a traditional set of vows involving such terms as “for better for worse; for richer for poorer; in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish; till death do us part.” The mother on the other side of the phone is furious! She will have a wedding done her way because she is paying for it and the pastor is hired by the church to comply. The pastor views his or her commitment to ministry as a calling, so the woman says she will go to the church council/trustees to argue her case. One of the council members hears about this and is close to the pastor. They ask the pastor: “How committed are you to this position? What cost are you willing to pay for your commitment to this position? What does it say about our congregation?” All three of today’s texts come to the commitment question from a different perspective.
Deuteronomy 34:1-12
Moses will pay a very high price for his ministry in this text. God will not permit him to enter the promised land due to an act of unfaithfulness in Numbers 20:10-13. He struck rock in Meribah so the people and their cattle could drink abundantly from it. This displeased the Lord. Scholars believe that by the rules of Deuteronomy theology, Moses’ actions resulted in negative consequences. Such were similar arguments in the book of Job by the faithful man’s friends. One path for preaching might be to ask if Moses is being treated fairly in being denied entry into the Holy Land. Is Moses a tragic literary figure whose life is cut short before the final goal of the people of faith is reached (Miller, p. 243)?
Another dimension to this lesson is that it is a final excerpt of the Torah writings in the Hebrew Bible. The first five books in the Hebrew Bible will have Moses’ voice, Israel’s first and foremost teaching authority. The Torah is complete now. It provides God’s intention for his people. Torah lays out the way for the people of faith. Finally, it looks beyond the wilderness years into the next chapter of the people. Moses is called the “servant of God,” whereas Joshua, the next leader, has no such title. He is a “prophet and without equal” (Von Rad, p. 210).
Moses is a prime example of a leader who is committed to the cause of the people, though he will not be able to enjoy the goal of entering the Holy Land. Do leaders of any community have a prerequisite requirement that they must be able to enjoy the fruits of the community? For example, there is a major holiday around the corner for a church. Everybody is invited except the pastor and his/her family. In the opening illustration, when the wedding does finally occur, everybody is part of the professional photographer’s photo shoot... except the pastor who officiated at the wedding.
Another direction one might go is to explore what is the chapter of this people of faith (the church) which we are presently embarking upon -- knowing full well that we will never see the fulfillment of our vision. How many congregations believed that a good Sunday school and youth ministry would be the “magic bullet” to revitalize their church? Then these same younger families go to other churches with differing or higher-energy ministries? Can we still be committed to the ministry?
Clergy and Christian education leaders in liturgical churches who still teach catechism class could probably identify many students who “graduated” from their church at confirmation. Later, they are active in another church with maybe multiple specialized staff and other resources for ministry. However, the catechism class might be like the book of Deuteronomy was “Torah” or catechism that served as a foundation for future life challenges and discoveries. In Matthew 4, while tempted in the wilderness by devil, Jesus refutes the temptations with quotations from Deuteronomy 6:13, 16; 8:3. [Sources: Patrick Miller, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Deuteronomy (Westminster John Knox Press, 1990); Gerhard Von Rad, The Old Testament Library: Deuteronomy (Westminster Press, 1966)]
1 Thessalonians 2:1-8
Paul is probably a better Christian than I am at times. He just “suffered and was shamefully treated” in Philippi. Now he is striving to write a pastoral letter of caring and nurture for Christians in Thessalonica. As one who has experienced bitter muggings in council and being asked to leave the church, I would not be in as near of a charitable mood as Paul is in with this letter. But being a Christian was never promised to be an easy road to travel. It does indeed take strong commitment. In this lesson Paul, who has not always been well received, continues to exhort, encourage, and charge his congregation to lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.
Other points of this text include Paul wants to assure these Christian that their judgment is sound and that he has confidence in their ability to distinguish him as a true apostle from those who are frauds. Paul is making a case in this text that his motives are pure. He remains committed to the cause of the gospel, despite any setbacks.
In response to abuse by the Philippi church, Paul continues a ministry of nurture, care, and encouragement to other Christians. His motives remain pure, despite any setbacks and accusations. He is committed to continue on as an apostle and teacher to serve these Christians.
In modern times, maybe local church conflict might result from some people who witness such activity, simply declaring that they are one of the “nones or dones” who longer want to attend church at all. This text might be an opportunity to stand back and look at the larger picture of what it means to be a community of faith. Finally, Paul did move on after Philippi to this group of Christians.
Paul is asking us to look deeper into the motives of people in church. He suggests we live Christian lives that reflect the gospel we preach. That is, we are to “walk our talk.” The epistle is dated in 49 CE, to a community whose name bears that of the sister of a pagan ruler who declares himself to be a “divine Caesar” (Furnish, pp. 25-27). A broader prospective for this letter might include persuading people that monotheist (One God) religion is to be preferred to many (pagan) gods. Most of the audience indeed consists of Gentile converts. There is a very small group of Jewish Christians who would know the proper temple etiquette of Paul’s background. So he must watch the amount of “in-house” language from traditional Judaism he utilizes. This is generally viewed as an uncontested Pauline writing. One could resolve any other scribal issues of this epistle with other pastoral epistles by suggesting that Silvanus or Timothy did the scribal work, as Paul shared his oral arguments.
How do we preach in a pastoral manner amidst adversity? What I have done in these cases is go over to Romans 1:17 (“The just shall live by faith alone”) and use this as a framework for living with conflict, opposition, and trying to make a favorable case for Christianity in a pagan community. This lesson serves as a specific road map as to how Paul does this in a given community, as he will travel to many other areas and face other times of adversity (Furnish, p. 31). Later, we would learn from Timothy that this congregation in Thessalonica did remain faithful! There is good news here. [Sources: Victor Furnish, 1 & 2 Thessalonians: Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Abingdon Press, 2007); Edgar Krentz, John S. Koenig, and Donald H. Juel, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament: Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, and 1 Thessalonians (Augsburg Fortress, 1985)]
Matthew 22:34-46
There are two sections in this text. First, Jesus is being trapped by questions of a Pharisee lawyer on the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:34-40). The second section regards what it means to call Jesus “Lord” (22:41-46). In the first instance, to love God and one’s neighbor are two sides of the same coin. In an appeal to dig deeper into the text, might one suggest that “love” does not always mean “affection” but also commitment? This is another opportunity to preach what it means to be committed to God in varying circumstances, and what it means to be committed to one’s neighbor as the world around us changes in many ways. The love for God command is an intertwining of the Hebrew Bible texts of Deuteronomy 6:5; 11:13-21; and Numbers 15:36-41. Loving ones neighbor is from Leviticus 9:18 (Hill, p. 306).
In the end, the Pharisees still debate which the greatest laws are. Jesus’ response probably did not resolve such debates. However, there are people who do not attend church who might say: “I am a good person because I love (respect) God and my neighbor.” A sermon direction on whether this translates into entering the kingdom of God might prove useful. Does one have to say certain confessional phrases to be considered a believer? What of a person who respects God and loves his or her neighbors greatly, but has little use for organized religion?
The other section of this text entails the use of Psalm 110:1. “The Lord says to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’ ” The objection to Jesus being called “Lord” is that if David calls him Lord, how can he be a “son”? Jesus is calling for further definition of what it means to be “Christ” in this text. Jesus argues that David, the psalmist, was referring to the “otherness” of the Christ, not a direct monarchial bloodline per se. The Pharisees and Jesus are in a quarrel over the definition of “Son of David” here. Jesus argues that “Son of David” is an inadequate definition of Lord or Christ. Matthew’s gospel has been seen as a Jewish reform movement proposal. This text extends the definitions and expectations of a Christ and Lord to apply to Jesus’ ministry.
“In his whole ministry Jesus has displayed how he understands the Messiah’s role: he is a spiritual leader who seeks through word and deed to communicate God’s love for lost sheep of the house of Israel and to help them become children of the heavenly Father (5:45). If he must die to remain faithful to his role, he will do so” (Hare, p. 262).
Matthew and the New Testament writers do not believe they do any violence to Psalm 110:1 by broadening the understanding of Lord as a “Christ” defined from heavenly perspective (Smith, pp. 266-268).
What does it mean to say Jesus is “Lord” would be a path to preach on this text? Yet the temptation is similar to the Deuteronomy lesson, to have other “lords” or “gods” on the side that might help out temporarily or locally for now (then we go back to the supreme Lord). While in higher education and while establishing oneself in their job, there might be a tendency to view a certain power person as being “treated like Lord/God” -- we do not want to anger them at any cost. Does the Lord of scripture ever deserve similar fear and respect? Are we really a monotheistic nation, or do we have other sources of meaning and powers that we place alongside the Lord God of Israel and the New Testament Church? [Sources: Douglas R.A. Hare, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Matthew (John Knox Press, 1993); David Hill, The New Century Bible Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew (Wm B. Eerdmanns, 1972); Robert Smith, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew (Augsburg Fortress, 1989)]
Application
A local church is near a little league baseball diamond. During the summertime, cars use the church’s parking lot. However, there is discussion on the church council about keeping the church doors open as the public uses the restrooms. First, there is dirt and grass on the carpeted floors that lead to the restrooms. Second, there have been cases of minor theft from the narthex area. Finally, if anybody gets hurts running up and down the church steps, will the church insurance cover this? What does it mean to be a good neighbor here? What would “loving God” entail? The community decided to get outdoor portable restroom cubicles nearer to the field. How much of the church property is being extended as a neighborly gesture? When is there abuse? Does the church trash dumpster qualify as a public dumping spot for anybody who wishes to dispose of their trash the night before trash cleanup day? If Jesus is Lord, how does this translate when neighbors try to push the envelope with the local church property?
Alternative Application
A family tells meal guests that “we do not discuss religion or politics at the table.” In the midst of their meal, a topic comes up about local school playground equipment and the children’s access to such facilities since the taxpayers foot the bill here. Is this violating the not discussing religion or politics rule? In the same meal, somebody drops a plate or sneezes and a profanity of using the Lord’s name in vain slips out. How far does one enforce this rule?
Deuteronomy 34:1-12
Moses will pay a very high price for his ministry in this text. God will not permit him to enter the promised land due to an act of unfaithfulness in Numbers 20:10-13. He struck rock in Meribah so the people and their cattle could drink abundantly from it. This displeased the Lord. Scholars believe that by the rules of Deuteronomy theology, Moses’ actions resulted in negative consequences. Such were similar arguments in the book of Job by the faithful man’s friends. One path for preaching might be to ask if Moses is being treated fairly in being denied entry into the Holy Land. Is Moses a tragic literary figure whose life is cut short before the final goal of the people of faith is reached (Miller, p. 243)?
Another dimension to this lesson is that it is a final excerpt of the Torah writings in the Hebrew Bible. The first five books in the Hebrew Bible will have Moses’ voice, Israel’s first and foremost teaching authority. The Torah is complete now. It provides God’s intention for his people. Torah lays out the way for the people of faith. Finally, it looks beyond the wilderness years into the next chapter of the people. Moses is called the “servant of God,” whereas Joshua, the next leader, has no such title. He is a “prophet and without equal” (Von Rad, p. 210).
Moses is a prime example of a leader who is committed to the cause of the people, though he will not be able to enjoy the goal of entering the Holy Land. Do leaders of any community have a prerequisite requirement that they must be able to enjoy the fruits of the community? For example, there is a major holiday around the corner for a church. Everybody is invited except the pastor and his/her family. In the opening illustration, when the wedding does finally occur, everybody is part of the professional photographer’s photo shoot... except the pastor who officiated at the wedding.
Another direction one might go is to explore what is the chapter of this people of faith (the church) which we are presently embarking upon -- knowing full well that we will never see the fulfillment of our vision. How many congregations believed that a good Sunday school and youth ministry would be the “magic bullet” to revitalize their church? Then these same younger families go to other churches with differing or higher-energy ministries? Can we still be committed to the ministry?
Clergy and Christian education leaders in liturgical churches who still teach catechism class could probably identify many students who “graduated” from their church at confirmation. Later, they are active in another church with maybe multiple specialized staff and other resources for ministry. However, the catechism class might be like the book of Deuteronomy was “Torah” or catechism that served as a foundation for future life challenges and discoveries. In Matthew 4, while tempted in the wilderness by devil, Jesus refutes the temptations with quotations from Deuteronomy 6:13, 16; 8:3. [Sources: Patrick Miller, Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Deuteronomy (Westminster John Knox Press, 1990); Gerhard Von Rad, The Old Testament Library: Deuteronomy (Westminster Press, 1966)]
1 Thessalonians 2:1-8
Paul is probably a better Christian than I am at times. He just “suffered and was shamefully treated” in Philippi. Now he is striving to write a pastoral letter of caring and nurture for Christians in Thessalonica. As one who has experienced bitter muggings in council and being asked to leave the church, I would not be in as near of a charitable mood as Paul is in with this letter. But being a Christian was never promised to be an easy road to travel. It does indeed take strong commitment. In this lesson Paul, who has not always been well received, continues to exhort, encourage, and charge his congregation to lead a life worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory.
Other points of this text include Paul wants to assure these Christian that their judgment is sound and that he has confidence in their ability to distinguish him as a true apostle from those who are frauds. Paul is making a case in this text that his motives are pure. He remains committed to the cause of the gospel, despite any setbacks.
In response to abuse by the Philippi church, Paul continues a ministry of nurture, care, and encouragement to other Christians. His motives remain pure, despite any setbacks and accusations. He is committed to continue on as an apostle and teacher to serve these Christians.
In modern times, maybe local church conflict might result from some people who witness such activity, simply declaring that they are one of the “nones or dones” who longer want to attend church at all. This text might be an opportunity to stand back and look at the larger picture of what it means to be a community of faith. Finally, Paul did move on after Philippi to this group of Christians.
Paul is asking us to look deeper into the motives of people in church. He suggests we live Christian lives that reflect the gospel we preach. That is, we are to “walk our talk.” The epistle is dated in 49 CE, to a community whose name bears that of the sister of a pagan ruler who declares himself to be a “divine Caesar” (Furnish, pp. 25-27). A broader prospective for this letter might include persuading people that monotheist (One God) religion is to be preferred to many (pagan) gods. Most of the audience indeed consists of Gentile converts. There is a very small group of Jewish Christians who would know the proper temple etiquette of Paul’s background. So he must watch the amount of “in-house” language from traditional Judaism he utilizes. This is generally viewed as an uncontested Pauline writing. One could resolve any other scribal issues of this epistle with other pastoral epistles by suggesting that Silvanus or Timothy did the scribal work, as Paul shared his oral arguments.
How do we preach in a pastoral manner amidst adversity? What I have done in these cases is go over to Romans 1:17 (“The just shall live by faith alone”) and use this as a framework for living with conflict, opposition, and trying to make a favorable case for Christianity in a pagan community. This lesson serves as a specific road map as to how Paul does this in a given community, as he will travel to many other areas and face other times of adversity (Furnish, p. 31). Later, we would learn from Timothy that this congregation in Thessalonica did remain faithful! There is good news here. [Sources: Victor Furnish, 1 & 2 Thessalonians: Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Abingdon Press, 2007); Edgar Krentz, John S. Koenig, and Donald H. Juel, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament: Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, and 1 Thessalonians (Augsburg Fortress, 1985)]
Matthew 22:34-46
There are two sections in this text. First, Jesus is being trapped by questions of a Pharisee lawyer on the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:34-40). The second section regards what it means to call Jesus “Lord” (22:41-46). In the first instance, to love God and one’s neighbor are two sides of the same coin. In an appeal to dig deeper into the text, might one suggest that “love” does not always mean “affection” but also commitment? This is another opportunity to preach what it means to be committed to God in varying circumstances, and what it means to be committed to one’s neighbor as the world around us changes in many ways. The love for God command is an intertwining of the Hebrew Bible texts of Deuteronomy 6:5; 11:13-21; and Numbers 15:36-41. Loving ones neighbor is from Leviticus 9:18 (Hill, p. 306).
In the end, the Pharisees still debate which the greatest laws are. Jesus’ response probably did not resolve such debates. However, there are people who do not attend church who might say: “I am a good person because I love (respect) God and my neighbor.” A sermon direction on whether this translates into entering the kingdom of God might prove useful. Does one have to say certain confessional phrases to be considered a believer? What of a person who respects God and loves his or her neighbors greatly, but has little use for organized religion?
The other section of this text entails the use of Psalm 110:1. “The Lord says to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’ ” The objection to Jesus being called “Lord” is that if David calls him Lord, how can he be a “son”? Jesus is calling for further definition of what it means to be “Christ” in this text. Jesus argues that David, the psalmist, was referring to the “otherness” of the Christ, not a direct monarchial bloodline per se. The Pharisees and Jesus are in a quarrel over the definition of “Son of David” here. Jesus argues that “Son of David” is an inadequate definition of Lord or Christ. Matthew’s gospel has been seen as a Jewish reform movement proposal. This text extends the definitions and expectations of a Christ and Lord to apply to Jesus’ ministry.
“In his whole ministry Jesus has displayed how he understands the Messiah’s role: he is a spiritual leader who seeks through word and deed to communicate God’s love for lost sheep of the house of Israel and to help them become children of the heavenly Father (5:45). If he must die to remain faithful to his role, he will do so” (Hare, p. 262).
Matthew and the New Testament writers do not believe they do any violence to Psalm 110:1 by broadening the understanding of Lord as a “Christ” defined from heavenly perspective (Smith, pp. 266-268).
What does it mean to say Jesus is “Lord” would be a path to preach on this text? Yet the temptation is similar to the Deuteronomy lesson, to have other “lords” or “gods” on the side that might help out temporarily or locally for now (then we go back to the supreme Lord). While in higher education and while establishing oneself in their job, there might be a tendency to view a certain power person as being “treated like Lord/God” -- we do not want to anger them at any cost. Does the Lord of scripture ever deserve similar fear and respect? Are we really a monotheistic nation, or do we have other sources of meaning and powers that we place alongside the Lord God of Israel and the New Testament Church? [Sources: Douglas R.A. Hare, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Matthew (John Knox Press, 1993); David Hill, The New Century Bible Commentary: The Gospel of Matthew (Wm B. Eerdmanns, 1972); Robert Smith, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew (Augsburg Fortress, 1989)]
Application
A local church is near a little league baseball diamond. During the summertime, cars use the church’s parking lot. However, there is discussion on the church council about keeping the church doors open as the public uses the restrooms. First, there is dirt and grass on the carpeted floors that lead to the restrooms. Second, there have been cases of minor theft from the narthex area. Finally, if anybody gets hurts running up and down the church steps, will the church insurance cover this? What does it mean to be a good neighbor here? What would “loving God” entail? The community decided to get outdoor portable restroom cubicles nearer to the field. How much of the church property is being extended as a neighborly gesture? When is there abuse? Does the church trash dumpster qualify as a public dumping spot for anybody who wishes to dispose of their trash the night before trash cleanup day? If Jesus is Lord, how does this translate when neighbors try to push the envelope with the local church property?
Alternative Application
A family tells meal guests that “we do not discuss religion or politics at the table.” In the midst of their meal, a topic comes up about local school playground equipment and the children’s access to such facilities since the taxpayers foot the bill here. Is this violating the not discussing religion or politics rule? In the same meal, somebody drops a plate or sneezes and a profanity of using the Lord’s name in vain slips out. How far does one enforce this rule?
