Living Which Values?
Commentary
An older pastor and his wife who serve in a remote hill area with sporadic cell phone reception drive to the nearest large city to get their android phones updated and serviced. The service technician is young man with tattoos in his late 20s. He works meticulously on the phones as he visits with the pastor and wife. The young man shares that he used to be a clergyperson in this pastor’s denomination. After some time as a chaplain and a few years serving in a small congregation in the next state, he decided to leave the pastoral ministry. And furthermore, his experience as a pastor revealed to him some very bitter, dark realities he experienced in the church. He shared that these people really didn’t practice or believe what they confessed on Sunday. The older pastor pointed out that no church is perfect and Christians are saints and sinners at the same time. The young replied, “True, but these same Christians are judgmental; look down their noses at other people who are not like them, and have a very huge mean streak. They abuse clergy as well as anybody who does not share their worldview.” This young man had worked overseas and told the pastor and his wife that quite frankly, he sees more spiritual people working in the world of telecommunications and groups who are unaffiliated with any faith-based organization. So not only has he left the pastoral ministry, but organized religion altogether. He attends church only for baptisms, weddings and funerals. The older pastor reminded the young man that the denomination is working hard to reach out to people in his generation.
Today’s texts raise the question of which values do people of the church practice in this season of Pentecost or Ordinary time when the church does its mission? The family of Ishmael in Genesis 21 might even agree with the young man above. Paul in Romans 6 frames in a way of which master do Christians serve? Matthew 10 is reminder that practicing the Christian faith in any time has never been easy.
Genesis 21:8-21
If a person ever wants a point to begin inter-faith dialogue with other Abraham religions, this text might be a good place to start. “In Muslim tradition, the Arabs trace their ancestry back to Abraham through Ishmael” (Metzger, 329). It is contested as to whether the Elohist (E) or Yahwist (J) sources wrote this section, but a combination might be a good compromise (JE). Both editorial sources sought to argue that Isaac is the rightful heir of Abraham in a time when properties of nomadic tribal families was often contested (Speiser, 157).
These verses are about conflict between the son of promise and that of a slave woman (Hagar). Essentially, the author wants to solidify that Isaac is the child of the future, though Ishmael is the eldest son born of the slave woman (some scholars suggest “concubine”) Hagar. Was this slave woman subject to coercion to have Abraham’s eldest son? If so, this text reports a rivalry between Sarah, the mother of Isaac, and Hagar, the mother of Ishmael.
Isaac is determined to be a gift of wonder, freedom and destiny from God from an older mother, whereas Ishmael is deemed to be a product of compulsion, control and alienation. While Isaac is the son of promise, one path of preaching might explore the elder son’s dashed claims. Later there would be the conflict between Esau and Jacob (Genesis 27). Jacob’s youngest favored son Joseph would incur the wrath of his older siblings (Genesis 37). In the selection of a King in Israel, the prophet Samuel would anoint the youngest of Jesse’s sons, David (1 Samuel 16). Luke 15:11-32 would also identify this theme in the parable of the “Prodigal Son” and the anger of the elder brother. Does God show disfavor with certain elder offspring?
The main point of the text is that the nature of faith trusts in God’s providence over trying to second guess, or pre-plan around God in an attempt to have a child outside the bonds of marriage. While Isaac is chosen as the child of promise, the text strives to suggest that there is no negative stigma to the non-elected son. God cared for the lad Ishmael and his mother in the desert. “And God was with the lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt” (Genesis 21:20-21).
Today in a modern media age, Abraham might be obligated to pay child support to Ishmael and Hagar. The feminist movement might question the ethics of compelling a female household servant to bear a child for her employer. If the mother and child were sent out into the desert today, they might seek legal counsel to receive some sort of compensation. With all of the above said, the challenge to pursue this path might be explore which values are being exemplified by the people of faith—regardless of what they confess in worship on the Sabbath.
A modern illustration might be an American woman marries an upstanding, educated professional husband from a Middle Eastern country. After a few years of marriage, she discovers that her husband has many other wives in his home Middle East country, and this is well within his legal rights to be the head of such a household. If the American woman is a Christian, and they now have children, how might she address this dilemma, now with the discovery of differing values? Are American state marriage laws outdated or possibly impossible to enforce? [Sources: Later Brueggemann, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Genesis, (Westminster John Knox Press, 1982); Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, Editors, The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford University Press, 1993); E.A. Speiser, The Anchor Bible: Genesis, (Double Day and Company, 1964)].
Romans 6:1b-11
“Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” If one wants to cut right to the chase to the conclusion of Paul’s argument, the bottom line answer is in Romans 8:12-13, “Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.” Essentially Paul frames his arguments in terms that do people choose to serve, the flesh that leads to death or Spirit of the new Adam (Jesus the Christ) which leads to life (Witherington, 155).
Written to largely a Gentile Christian audience, Paul acknowledges an inner tension between what Martin Luther called the old Adam who sinned in Genesis 3 and new Adam who is Jesus the risen Lord. Christians are joined to a spiritual union with the crucified and risen Christ. Therefore, a person need no longer to be a slave or servant to sin, but rather the freedom one has through the Spirit of the risen Christ. Since, Christ has been raised from the dead, so are those who place their faith in him.
(Another) Paul, Tillich argues that humans are anxious about their limitations which lead to fear of both death and lack of meaning in life, beyond the grave. Only the God who has risen from the grave can be relied upon to provide both meaning in this life and point humanity to life beyond the grave (Tillich, 191-201). Romans 6 would agree with this analysis. However, Paul in Romans cites that sin still has its hold on humans to the extent that they allow such values and desires to direct their lives. The young man in the opening illustration observes the decision to sin and thereby does not want to live in such a community.
Paul like many biblical authors addresses Christians as a corporate entity. Just as God rewarded and punished Israel as a collective people or nation, Paul uses similar collective metaphors such as the “body” to make his points (1 Corinthians 12). Elsewhere, Paul suggests, “…. in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. (I Corinthians 15:52). The Lord who rules people’s lives on earth will be the same Lord they are delivered to after this life on earth. The corporate community of faith rises from the grave at the sound of the trumpet.
For Paul to decide to return to sin as one’s master is the equivalent to Israel choosing to return to Egypt after they have experienced the exodus and wilderness journeys (Witherington, 164). The young man in the opening illustration who has even benefited from a higher theological education from the church does not experience a community whose values are shaped by the Christ in whom he believes in.
“The person teaching [preaching] this passage will need to deal with the question of baptism” (Achtemeier, 106). The very act of baptism assumes a trust in the crucified and risen Christ. This includes both his death and new life in his resurrection. Baptism is an expression of trust in Christ has opened up new possibilities to God, and it follows therefore to one another that is part of this community of faith. Preaching might be challenged to explore the difference and similarities to the infant baptism and adult baptism after conversion. Both have possible theological dangers. Infant baptism risks the danger of assuming God’s grace requires no personal response. Adult baptism runs the risk of making confession a requirement to be worthy for baptism (Achtemeier, 106). Regardless of one’s view on infant or adult baptism, Paul insists that people are to die daily to sin and place their trust in the risen Christ both as individuals and as a community of faith.
A very simple sermon title for text might be, “Who do you trust your life with?” (As well as the lives of our loved ones)? This text is often used in funeral liturgies, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” Romans 6:3-5.
I have used this text in a funeral sermon for Christian saints whom I never met. I say, “I did not know this person myself, but I do know their God. This God has buried sin through the death of Jesus Christ. This person is with the Lord in whom they served.” In the back of my mind I am not necessarily “preaching them into heaven,” but I am making a candid statement informed by theologian Paul Tillich, that we will be delivered to that God or “god” which gave our lives meaning and points us beyond grave. [Sources: Paul Achtemeier, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Romans (Westminster John Knox Press, 1985); Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Volume One, University of Chicago Press, (1951); Ben Witherington III and Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Wm B. Erdmann’s, 2004)].
Matthew 10:24-39
The focus of this text turns away from Jesus and onto his disciples. The topic is suffering and rejection experienced by all disciples of all times who follow Jesus. As this related to the young man in the opening story, he might better have listened more carefully in theological seminary education classrooms that modern clergy are indeed treated rudely, rejected and often suffer countless hours of rejection. “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master; ….If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they malign those of his household?” ( Matthew 10:24, 25).
The young man in the opening illustration might have been well served reading E. Brooks Holifield’s book, God’s Ambassadors: A History of the Christian Clergy in North America (Wm. B. Erdmann’s, 2007). Despite modern laments of loss of clergy authority, Holifield argues pastoral authority has always never been unlimited in North America. Since the seventeenth century, romanticized accounts of highly respected clergy are an anomaly, not the rule. American clergy were immediately demoted from their aristocratic status in Western Europe to servants of either the congregation or network of pastors, later called “denominations.” Holifield’s book has one strand that modern North American clergy are treated no worse or better than earlier predecessors who came to the American shores in the seventeenth century. Jesus in Matthew 10 would probably agree with this assessment of modern ministry.
Other take away points from the Matthew 10 text include that Jesus’ followers should preach boldly fearing no shame from their peers or those who mock and persecute them. This is because God is judge in the end. Jesus’ agents should not fear persecutors or those who threaten death (Matthew 10:28). Finally, God’s sovereignty can be trusted both in life here on earth and in death (Matthew 1029-31). To publicly acknowledge the Christ in the God in whom Christians serve will result in the risen Christ acknowledging them to his Father God. This text does not seem to allow “secret Christians.” One steps up to the public forum for what he or she believes and takes the consequences one way or another.
The final section points to divisions amongst families because of faith in Christ. Loyalty to Christ is more important than keeping peace within one’s family. In times when there are groups around who promote “Christian values and family,” what happens when somebody’s understanding of “Christian faith” may not agree with their family’s understanding of the same Christ? A modern example might be a person who is raised in a revivalist, informal worshipping church tradition, which preaches “believer’s baptism,” then goes away to college to work into another community. They then return with a strong belief in a high liturgical and sacramental view of Christianity. This result in clashes in one understands of how they experience God in Christ. Also, the family’s faith leans toward personal piety concerns, while the younger adult child’s faith makes social justice issues a priority. Paul would argue in his epistles it is the same Christ, so why argue? Matthew’s gospel tends to preach to Jewish Christians, then later Gentiles (in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20). This is important because in the opening illustration, the young man might see these divisions in the church and wonder what values inform rigorous practices of faith (or lack of them)?
As a child I was raised to believe that only people in communist and third world countries have to suffer for their faith in Christ. As I grew into adulthood, I soon discovered that some employers did not honor my desire to have Sundays off for worship. Nor would they compromise to give me Wednesday or Saturdays off in the case of alternative worship practices. Church leaders are often put into difficult situations when school sports and other community activities are of higher priority to parents of teenagers than that of church activities and classes. Yet the families expect the same results of a deep-seated faith formation as they had fifty years ago, when time schedules were not so tight. [sources: Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, Thomas Nelson, 1993) Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio Rhetorical Commentary, Wm. B. Erdmann’s 2009)].
Application
Generally Matthew 5-7 has been viewed as the gospel writer’s teaching manual for discipleship through the ages. How might we apply the lessons from the beatitudes to modern challenges of faith in the community? Also, is it helpful to have local teachers actually living with the students in whom they teach? Has the time of academic tenure which tends to protect some teaching faculty from the vulnerabilities of other workers run its course with time?
Alternative Application
What is worth angering one’s parents over? On one hand the fourth commandment in Exodus 20:12 says “Honor your father and your mother…” How does one reconcile this text with the Matthew 10:24-39 text?
Today’s texts raise the question of which values do people of the church practice in this season of Pentecost or Ordinary time when the church does its mission? The family of Ishmael in Genesis 21 might even agree with the young man above. Paul in Romans 6 frames in a way of which master do Christians serve? Matthew 10 is reminder that practicing the Christian faith in any time has never been easy.
Genesis 21:8-21
If a person ever wants a point to begin inter-faith dialogue with other Abraham religions, this text might be a good place to start. “In Muslim tradition, the Arabs trace their ancestry back to Abraham through Ishmael” (Metzger, 329). It is contested as to whether the Elohist (E) or Yahwist (J) sources wrote this section, but a combination might be a good compromise (JE). Both editorial sources sought to argue that Isaac is the rightful heir of Abraham in a time when properties of nomadic tribal families was often contested (Speiser, 157).
These verses are about conflict between the son of promise and that of a slave woman (Hagar). Essentially, the author wants to solidify that Isaac is the child of the future, though Ishmael is the eldest son born of the slave woman (some scholars suggest “concubine”) Hagar. Was this slave woman subject to coercion to have Abraham’s eldest son? If so, this text reports a rivalry between Sarah, the mother of Isaac, and Hagar, the mother of Ishmael.
Isaac is determined to be a gift of wonder, freedom and destiny from God from an older mother, whereas Ishmael is deemed to be a product of compulsion, control and alienation. While Isaac is the son of promise, one path of preaching might explore the elder son’s dashed claims. Later there would be the conflict between Esau and Jacob (Genesis 27). Jacob’s youngest favored son Joseph would incur the wrath of his older siblings (Genesis 37). In the selection of a King in Israel, the prophet Samuel would anoint the youngest of Jesse’s sons, David (1 Samuel 16). Luke 15:11-32 would also identify this theme in the parable of the “Prodigal Son” and the anger of the elder brother. Does God show disfavor with certain elder offspring?
The main point of the text is that the nature of faith trusts in God’s providence over trying to second guess, or pre-plan around God in an attempt to have a child outside the bonds of marriage. While Isaac is chosen as the child of promise, the text strives to suggest that there is no negative stigma to the non-elected son. God cared for the lad Ishmael and his mother in the desert. “And God was with the lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt” (Genesis 21:20-21).
Today in a modern media age, Abraham might be obligated to pay child support to Ishmael and Hagar. The feminist movement might question the ethics of compelling a female household servant to bear a child for her employer. If the mother and child were sent out into the desert today, they might seek legal counsel to receive some sort of compensation. With all of the above said, the challenge to pursue this path might be explore which values are being exemplified by the people of faith—regardless of what they confess in worship on the Sabbath.
A modern illustration might be an American woman marries an upstanding, educated professional husband from a Middle Eastern country. After a few years of marriage, she discovers that her husband has many other wives in his home Middle East country, and this is well within his legal rights to be the head of such a household. If the American woman is a Christian, and they now have children, how might she address this dilemma, now with the discovery of differing values? Are American state marriage laws outdated or possibly impossible to enforce? [Sources: Later Brueggemann, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Genesis, (Westminster John Knox Press, 1982); Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, Editors, The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Oxford University Press, 1993); E.A. Speiser, The Anchor Bible: Genesis, (Double Day and Company, 1964)].
Romans 6:1b-11
“Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” If one wants to cut right to the chase to the conclusion of Paul’s argument, the bottom line answer is in Romans 8:12-13, “Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.” Essentially Paul frames his arguments in terms that do people choose to serve, the flesh that leads to death or Spirit of the new Adam (Jesus the Christ) which leads to life (Witherington, 155).
Written to largely a Gentile Christian audience, Paul acknowledges an inner tension between what Martin Luther called the old Adam who sinned in Genesis 3 and new Adam who is Jesus the risen Lord. Christians are joined to a spiritual union with the crucified and risen Christ. Therefore, a person need no longer to be a slave or servant to sin, but rather the freedom one has through the Spirit of the risen Christ. Since, Christ has been raised from the dead, so are those who place their faith in him.
(Another) Paul, Tillich argues that humans are anxious about their limitations which lead to fear of both death and lack of meaning in life, beyond the grave. Only the God who has risen from the grave can be relied upon to provide both meaning in this life and point humanity to life beyond the grave (Tillich, 191-201). Romans 6 would agree with this analysis. However, Paul in Romans cites that sin still has its hold on humans to the extent that they allow such values and desires to direct their lives. The young man in the opening illustration observes the decision to sin and thereby does not want to live in such a community.
Paul like many biblical authors addresses Christians as a corporate entity. Just as God rewarded and punished Israel as a collective people or nation, Paul uses similar collective metaphors such as the “body” to make his points (1 Corinthians 12). Elsewhere, Paul suggests, “…. in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. (I Corinthians 15:52). The Lord who rules people’s lives on earth will be the same Lord they are delivered to after this life on earth. The corporate community of faith rises from the grave at the sound of the trumpet.
For Paul to decide to return to sin as one’s master is the equivalent to Israel choosing to return to Egypt after they have experienced the exodus and wilderness journeys (Witherington, 164). The young man in the opening illustration who has even benefited from a higher theological education from the church does not experience a community whose values are shaped by the Christ in whom he believes in.
“The person teaching [preaching] this passage will need to deal with the question of baptism” (Achtemeier, 106). The very act of baptism assumes a trust in the crucified and risen Christ. This includes both his death and new life in his resurrection. Baptism is an expression of trust in Christ has opened up new possibilities to God, and it follows therefore to one another that is part of this community of faith. Preaching might be challenged to explore the difference and similarities to the infant baptism and adult baptism after conversion. Both have possible theological dangers. Infant baptism risks the danger of assuming God’s grace requires no personal response. Adult baptism runs the risk of making confession a requirement to be worthy for baptism (Achtemeier, 106). Regardless of one’s view on infant or adult baptism, Paul insists that people are to die daily to sin and place their trust in the risen Christ both as individuals and as a community of faith.
A very simple sermon title for text might be, “Who do you trust your life with?” (As well as the lives of our loved ones)? This text is often used in funeral liturgies, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” Romans 6:3-5.
I have used this text in a funeral sermon for Christian saints whom I never met. I say, “I did not know this person myself, but I do know their God. This God has buried sin through the death of Jesus Christ. This person is with the Lord in whom they served.” In the back of my mind I am not necessarily “preaching them into heaven,” but I am making a candid statement informed by theologian Paul Tillich, that we will be delivered to that God or “god” which gave our lives meaning and points us beyond grave. [Sources: Paul Achtemeier, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching: Romans (Westminster John Knox Press, 1985); Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Volume One, University of Chicago Press, (1951); Ben Witherington III and Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Wm B. Erdmann’s, 2004)].
Matthew 10:24-39
The focus of this text turns away from Jesus and onto his disciples. The topic is suffering and rejection experienced by all disciples of all times who follow Jesus. As this related to the young man in the opening story, he might better have listened more carefully in theological seminary education classrooms that modern clergy are indeed treated rudely, rejected and often suffer countless hours of rejection. “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master; ….If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they malign those of his household?” ( Matthew 10:24, 25).
The young man in the opening illustration might have been well served reading E. Brooks Holifield’s book, God’s Ambassadors: A History of the Christian Clergy in North America (Wm. B. Erdmann’s, 2007). Despite modern laments of loss of clergy authority, Holifield argues pastoral authority has always never been unlimited in North America. Since the seventeenth century, romanticized accounts of highly respected clergy are an anomaly, not the rule. American clergy were immediately demoted from their aristocratic status in Western Europe to servants of either the congregation or network of pastors, later called “denominations.” Holifield’s book has one strand that modern North American clergy are treated no worse or better than earlier predecessors who came to the American shores in the seventeenth century. Jesus in Matthew 10 would probably agree with this assessment of modern ministry.
Other take away points from the Matthew 10 text include that Jesus’ followers should preach boldly fearing no shame from their peers or those who mock and persecute them. This is because God is judge in the end. Jesus’ agents should not fear persecutors or those who threaten death (Matthew 10:28). Finally, God’s sovereignty can be trusted both in life here on earth and in death (Matthew 1029-31). To publicly acknowledge the Christ in the God in whom Christians serve will result in the risen Christ acknowledging them to his Father God. This text does not seem to allow “secret Christians.” One steps up to the public forum for what he or she believes and takes the consequences one way or another.
The final section points to divisions amongst families because of faith in Christ. Loyalty to Christ is more important than keeping peace within one’s family. In times when there are groups around who promote “Christian values and family,” what happens when somebody’s understanding of “Christian faith” may not agree with their family’s understanding of the same Christ? A modern example might be a person who is raised in a revivalist, informal worshipping church tradition, which preaches “believer’s baptism,” then goes away to college to work into another community. They then return with a strong belief in a high liturgical and sacramental view of Christianity. This result in clashes in one understands of how they experience God in Christ. Also, the family’s faith leans toward personal piety concerns, while the younger adult child’s faith makes social justice issues a priority. Paul would argue in his epistles it is the same Christ, so why argue? Matthew’s gospel tends to preach to Jewish Christians, then later Gentiles (in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20). This is important because in the opening illustration, the young man might see these divisions in the church and wonder what values inform rigorous practices of faith (or lack of them)?
As a child I was raised to believe that only people in communist and third world countries have to suffer for their faith in Christ. As I grew into adulthood, I soon discovered that some employers did not honor my desire to have Sundays off for worship. Nor would they compromise to give me Wednesday or Saturdays off in the case of alternative worship practices. Church leaders are often put into difficult situations when school sports and other community activities are of higher priority to parents of teenagers than that of church activities and classes. Yet the families expect the same results of a deep-seated faith formation as they had fifty years ago, when time schedules were not so tight. [sources: Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, Thomas Nelson, 1993) Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio Rhetorical Commentary, Wm. B. Erdmann’s 2009)].
Application
Generally Matthew 5-7 has been viewed as the gospel writer’s teaching manual for discipleship through the ages. How might we apply the lessons from the beatitudes to modern challenges of faith in the community? Also, is it helpful to have local teachers actually living with the students in whom they teach? Has the time of academic tenure which tends to protect some teaching faculty from the vulnerabilities of other workers run its course with time?
Alternative Application
What is worth angering one’s parents over? On one hand the fourth commandment in Exodus 20:12 says “Honor your father and your mother…” How does one reconcile this text with the Matthew 10:24-39 text?
