Religious jabberwocky
Commentary
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
This poem, entitled Jabberwocky, is found in Chapter 1 of Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There. The poem is considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all nonsense poems in English. Our response to the poem may be much like Alice's when she says, "It seems to fill my head with ideas -- only I don't know exactly what they are."
I suspect there are folks in worship from week to week for whom the theological terminology we employ sounds like religious jabberwocky. "Justification," "sanctification," "regeneration," "glorification" -- these are words which we have inherited from our theological forebears, and we may even know what they mean. But I wonder if these words don't sound like nonsense to the average pewsitter. These words fill their heads with ideas -- they just don't know exactly what they are. The texts this week offer us an opportunity to interpret some of our religious jabberwocky.
Isaiah 49:1-7
There are a number of questions raised by this text that the interpreter might explore with much benefit. For example, is the call of God (v. 1) individual or universal? Are only a few "called" to do extraordinary deeds or to engage in special ministry, or is everyone called to a personal and ordinary ministry? This, in turn, invites questions related to vocation. Are our vocations God-given or self-selected? If God-given, is there a spiritual dimension to our vocation? If self-selected, how does one's faith commitments impact that vocation?
Whose purpose is it to glorify God (v. 3) -- only the specially called or all who claim faith in God? And how does one glorify God? The best definition that I have heard of what it means to glorify God is this -- we glorify God when we bring his reputation up to his character. In other words, when how we represent God (his reputation) matches who he really is (his character), then he is glorified.
Frustrations in faithful living (v. 4) are not uncommon. Spiritual depression is not the "unpardonable sin." The question is not will we at times become frustrated and depressed, or as Paul puts it, "grow weary in well doing" -- we most certainly will. Rather, the question is, what will we do about it? One solution offered by the text is to recognize that what we are called to do is not ultimately our business, but God's business (vv. 5-6). We are serving God, not ourselves. It is his mission, not ours. Its success rests in him, not in us. Our responsibility is one of faithfulness to the task to which we are called. Our labor is its own reward. For after all, it is the Holy One of Israel who has chosen us.
1 Corinthians 1:1-9
The church at Corinth was in serious trouble. Open disagreements (6:1 ff.), factionalism (1:10 ff.), insensitivity across social and class lines (11:17 ff.), ethical impropriety (5:1 ff.) and the beginnings of a spiritual class-ism (12:1 ff.) combined to create a situation that Paul could not ignore. After all, the church at Corinth came into existence in large measure as a result of Paul's preaching and ministry there. Having already returned to Corinth at least once with dubious results (2 Corinthians 2:1), Paul chose to address these various issues in writing.
In keeping with his practice when sending correspondence, Paul pens a word of greeting and thanksgiving before launching into the real purpose of his letter. We have seen these greetings in other Pauline epistles, so there is nothing particularly new here. Indeed, the temptation is to treat this introductory section rather lightly because it is so familiar. However, the familiar often presents opportunities for greater exploration than the unfamiliar, which requires a broader rather than deeper interpretation.
One contemporary issue that this passage invites us to address is that of religious language. Terms, concepts and ideas developed in one cultural context or historical period will often carry a different meaning -- or no meaning -- in a different context or period. The result is that words continue to be used long after an understanding of their meaning has been lost.
Take as an example the word "sanctified" in verse 2. When was the last time you heard that word used in a nonreligious setting? When it was used in a religious setting, did you have the sense that the speaker knew what he or she was talking about? Did you understand what the speaker was talking about? Given the increasing levels of biblical and theological illiteracy within congregations, can we assume that this term carries any meaning at all in contemporary churches? If not, then perhaps it would be productive to help folks recapture the content of the term, even if the term itself is abandoned.
"Sanctified" and "saints" (v. 2) come from the same root word having to do with holiness. Neither of these words refers primarily to ethical behavior -- how good one is -- but rather speaks to one's relationship to the one who is holy -- God. The concept, "holy," you will recall, means to be set apart, to have a dedicated use separate and apart from the secular or profane. Thus, one can have a "holy vessel" solely for ritual use; a "holy temple" set apart for the singular purpose of worshiping God; or a "holy people" who have a divine function beyond the secular.
Drawing on this well-established Hebrew understanding, Paul states that the Corinthian Christians are, first of all, "sanctified," that is, brought into relationship with God through the life and death of Jesus Christ. Believers are "made holy" in the sense of being made useful for the purposes of God. This does not refer to a change in their ethical makeup, although that may well happen, but to a change in their relationship to God. In Christ one becomes a vessel set apart for divine purposes.
Whereas the phrase "were sanctified" speaks to a passive event, something done to us, the phrase "called to be saints" is active, that is, something we are asked to be or do. This is the other half of the relationship equation. In Christ one is made useful to God, but the scope of one's usefulness depends upon one's willingness to consciously participate in the new standing before God. As Christians we are called to live lives that reflect a divine dimension in a wholly secular society. Jesus Christ laid the foundation for our usefulness before God -- the quality of that usefulness is up to us.
John 1:29-42
There is an interesting dynamic at work in the first chapter of John's gospel concerning John the Baptizer (to avoid confusion between the two Johns, John the Baptizer will be referred to as JB). John seems to go out of his way to have JB minimize his own role and to emphasize the role of Jesus. In verse 6, JB is introduced as one sent from God, but immediately a clear distinction is drawn between JB's "witness" and the "true light" who was to come. In verse 15, John gives a parenthetical statement to distinguish JB from the Word made flesh full of grace and truth. In verses 19-28 John records an interchange between JB and emissaries from the Pharisees in which JB stated in the strongest terms -- "did not deny, but confessed" -- that he was not the Messiah, nor would he accept the honored, eschatological role of the Messiah's forerunner (e.g. Elijah or the prophet). In fact, he would not even accept the role of sandal-strapper. In verses 29-34, JB piles evidence upon evidence in order to positively identify Jesus as the Son of God. Finally, in verses 35-37, JB gives permission to two of his followers to switch allegiance from himself to Jesus. What exactly is going on here?
Some scholars (e.g. John Muir, A Marginal Jew) point out that this emphasis in John to minimize the standing of JB vis-a-vis Jesus is no accident. They point to the presence of a cult (in the technical, non-derogatory sense of that term) centered around the memory, teaching and baptism of JB. It is John's purpose, therefore, to present evidence that JB himself deferred to Jesus and that any ideology that elevated JB over Jesus was ill-informed. For that very reason, John's is the only gospel that does not mention Jesus' baptism at the hands of JB.
A second important theme in today's passage is John's emphasis on Jesus as the "Lamb of God." Twice in two paragraphs John places this confessional designation into the mouth of JB. This fits into John's overall purpose of identifying Jesus' crucifixion with the paschal sacrifice. Chronology becomes a bit confusing when trying to synchronize the Passion narratives of the four gospels. Some of the gospels wish to identify the Last Supper with the Passover meal. John, by contrast, places the Last Supper before Passover (13:1) and has the crucifixion of Jesus occur on Passover itself. John's juxtaposition of these two events would have the dramatic effect of Jesus being crucified even as families were sacrificing their Passover lamb -- thus, John's early on designation of Jesus as the Lamb of God.
Another literary device employed by John throughout his gospel is seen in the response of JB's disciples to Jesus. They readily recognize Jesus as the Messiah. For John, Jesus' messiahship is self-evident to all except for those who willfully refuse to acknowledge the truth of Jesus. A further trait of those who recognize the Messiah is their eagerness to share the news of their discovery with others. John's is an evangelistic gospel, which is seen clearly already, in this first chapter.
A final theme of John's gospel previewed in this passage is Jesus' ability to see beyond the surface impressions and into the heart of the individual or situation. This is demonstrated first in the renaming of Simon to Cephas (Peter), but reoccurs in Jesus' encounters with other individuals (e.g. Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria). Therefore, just as a musical overture introduces in the beginning the various themes to be heard in the musical, so does John introduce his literary themes in this chapter-long prologue.
Application
The pastor during my youth was a gentle, caring and compassionate man. It was through his influence and encouragement that I made my way into the parish ministry. His sense of integrity and personhood came in large measure from his early years and continued connection with the rural South. Some years later I had the joy of serving with him in a staff position within a suburban setting. Only then did I realize his heavy usage of agricultural and rural metaphors. What in earlier years seemed commonplace was in a different setting, at a different time and to a different generation a hindrance more than a help to communication. Few people in that suburban congregation had any connection with rural America and therefore could not relate to his well-intentioned, though agricultural laden, sermonic efforts.
I don't hear many farm stories any more (although the Bible is full of them), but I do continue to hear a lot of "--ation" theological words. I sometimes wonder if these soul-stirring terms of a previous generation continue to command any relevance or understanding to contemporary society. It is not that the concepts behind the words are untrue or not helpful, but that the terminology used to represent the concepts has lost its power to communicate.
This loss of communicative power may be the result of the words having lost their currency -- they have simply fallen from the vocabulary of ordinary folk. But the loss may be the result of pastor-teachers relying more on the theological terms themselves and not adequately explaining the content of the terms.
The commentary section on Corinthians is an example of how one might recapture a term -- in this case "sanctified" -- by exploring its content. Similarly, one might devote a sermon to exploring why John chose the metaphor, "Lamb of God." The preacher's assumption that all who hear this phrase understand its meaning is a faulty assumption.
Questions one might explore are: What was the purpose of sacrifice within the Jewish system? Did the Passover sacrifice differ in substance and meaning from other animal sacrifices? If so, which sacrificial concept was John identifying with Jesus? Or was John combining two separate ideas into one new concept? What did the term "Lamb of God" say to John's audience? Is there contemporary terminology that communicates the same idea?
The Passover sacrifice of a lamb was related to freedom from bondage and was not a sin sacrifice. The animal sacrifice in the temple was a sin offering, but only for unintentional sins. For intentional acts of wrongdoing -- "sins of a high hand" -- there was no sacrifice. Restitution had to be made in other ways. Both of these concepts seem to be merged in John's gospel as he presents Jesus as a Passover sacrifice in whom sins are forgiven. John's audience heard both of these ideas combined in a new and richly evocative way. How we hear them depends upon the willingness of the preacher to take the time to explain the content of biblical images rather than merely using the images without context. Failure to re-incarnate theological terms for a contemporary audience runs the risk of speaking religious jabberwocky.
Alternative Applications
1) Isaiah 49:1-7: The connection between call and vocation is an interesting one. We usually think of our vocation as the work we are paid to do or the profession in which we are engaged. A thought-provoking twist on this idea is to consider that our vocation is to represent God to the world and that our employment is the way we engage in that vocation. If we were all included in the "call" of this passage, what would be the implication of this for how we approach our jobs? It might mean that God controls our future, not our supervisor; that God is the source of our income, not the payroll department. It might also mean that we are accountable to God, not the career advancement people, for the ethical decisions and behavior we exhibit in the workplace; and that the work we do is ultimately a ministry in service to God, not a box on the corporate organizational chart. If our vocation and call is to serve God, and the workplace is the arena for that service, then we will not say TGIF, but TGIM (Thank God Its Monday).
2) 1 Corinthians 1:1-9: Paul offers thanksgiving for the "grace of God" at work within the Corinthian church. God's grace is at work within every congregation of believers, though sometimes that grace is overlooked. As we move into this new calendar year, perhaps a service to celebrate God's grace gifts would provide a positive encouragement to the congregation toward more faithful living. How is the grace of God being demonstrated in your congregation? Who are the silent saints providing faithful witness to God's love? An invitation could be given for members of the congregation to tell of how another member has been used by God to touch their life. Index cards could be distributed during the service for members to record the names and actions of those in whom they had seen the grace of God at work. The cards could be collected toward the end of the service and read as a way of celebrating God's activity within the church.
3) John 1:29-42: At a time when competition influences almost everything we do, from out-selling the competition to out-growing the neighboring congregation, maybe we can learn a lesson in humility and servanthood from John the Baptizer. What was it about John that enabled him to place the ministry of Jesus ahead of his own? Here are some possible answers:
* A recognition that what we do is not about us, but about God.
* An awareness of God that allows us to see the movement of God in the world, even when others cannot.
* A desire that those around us realize their full potential, even if that requires us to release their loyalty to our agenda.
FIRST LESSON FOCUS
Isaiah 49:1-7
This is the second in the series of four Servant Songs that we find in the prophecies of Second Isaiah. The other three are found in Isaiah 42:1-4 (9), which we discussed last week; in Isaiah 50:4-9; and in Isaiah 52:13--53:12, which is known as the song of the Suffering Servant. These all were included in the prophet's proclamations to the Judean exiles in Babylonia between 550 and 538 B.C.
Among the group, this particular text is probably the most difficult for the preacher to interpret for a congregation. A decision has to be made as to how to understand the song. The temptation, of course, is to apply the passage immediately to the person of Christ, but that is to ignore the historical setting of the text.
The question is: Who speaks in this text? We could say that these are words of the prophet himself, and a number of commentators have chosen that option. But such a view contradicts verse 4 in which Israel is clearly called the servant. To overcome such difficulty, many scholars eliminate the word "Israel" from that verse, but there is little justification for such an omission. And as we saw last week, Israel is repeatedly called the Lord's servant in other passages in the Second Isaiah corpus.
The second option is to attribute the words of this passage to Israel, and that would certainly accord with the historical situation of that covenant people in Babylonian exile. Verse 4 seems to mirror the attitude of Israel portrayed in 40:27, for example, and verse 7 portrays Israel's despised place among the nations (cf. 53:2-3). But then, verses 5-6 contradict that attribution, for whoever speaks here is called to bring Israel back to her God. So is Israel the servant called to restore Israel? To overcome that difficulty, many scholars have maintained that the servant Israel refers to the faithful among the Israelites, whose task is to restore all of their people to their relationship with God. The servant, it is held, is an idealized segment of Israel, Israelites as they are meant to be and as God calls them to be.
Third, it is possible to interpret this text in relation to the new Israel in Jesus Christ, namely, in relation to the church, and I myself have used such an interpretation in an earlier year's edition of Emphasis. Certainly the role of the first covenant people, Israel of the Old Testament, is the same role to which the covenant people of the church are called.
As we meditate on this text anew, however, it seems that the best approach is to preserve the identification of the servant with Israel, as we did last week. But the servant in this passage is idealized. He is now the faithful among the Israelites, and the prophet identifies himself with those faithful. So we can say that servant, faithful Israel and the prophet himself are both speaking in this passage.
In that perspective, five emphases meet us from the text. First, the prophet's and Israel's servanthood are planned from the beginning by God. The Lord is working out his purpose of salvation, and so he has planned and called his servants of that purpose from the time when they were in the womb of their mothers (v. 1). The thought is reminiscent of the call of both the prophet Jeremiah (1:5) and the Apostle Paul (Galatians 1:15). God looks ahead in history and creates those whom he intends for his service. Could it be that is what he also did when he created us and brought us into his church?
Second, the text emphasizes the power of God's word (v. 2). Servants of God have no power within themselves to convert anyone or to bring anyone into relationship with the Lord. But God's servants are given his word, and that word is "sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit" (Hebrews 4:12). God's word, throughout the scriptures, is powerful, effective force, which brings about that of which it speaks (cf. Genesis 1:3; Isaiah 55:10-11). Jeremiah even says that the word is like a fire or "like a hammer which breaks a rock in pieces" (Jeremiah 23:28). So servants of the Lord are given one piece of equipment -- the Word of God -- and insofar as that is what they use in their mission, they may count on the power of the Lord (cf. Jeremiah 15:19-21).
Third, the servants of the Lord will often meet opposition to their words and deeds (v. 4). Very often the faithful find themselves in situations in which it seems that their efforts have produced no good fruit whatsoever, in which they think all of their labor is in vain. Certainly Second Isaiah and the faithful in exiled Israel experienced such feelings of futility, just as Christians today experience them. God's ongoing work is often hidden from human view, and it can seem as if he has a hand in no event or situation. But the faithful also know, as our text says, that the rewards of their labors are in the hands of God, that he is their strength in the midst of every difficult circumstance (vv. 4, 5), and that he is steadily, unfailingly working out his purpose of salvation.
Fourth, our text emphasizes that the saving purpose of God is not limited to one group or to one people or nation (vv. 6-7). God's plan is to save all people. "God so loved the world...." God wants to bring all folk into his saving fellowship, that they may have abundant life. And God uses his servants to further that universal purpose. There are no human limits to be set on the saving work of God.
Fifth, it is clear from our text that the Lord is the one who furnishes everything for his servants. He calls from the womb. He names his servants. He gives them his word. He sets the task. He furnishes the rewards. He supplies his strength. His worship is the goal of the work. Servants of the Lord cannot look to themselves for resources, for plans, for support, for objectives. All come from God, who has chosen them for his sole purpose. In the Lord alone are the motivation, the power and the purpose for servanthood.
That is not much different than what our Lord Jesus showed and taught us. Certainly he fulfilled the role of the true servant of God, and we finally have to see him as the fulfillment of this Servant Song. But he also instructed us. "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Mark 8:34). In other words, give up yourself, as if you were crucified, and let God work through you instead. Then all the ends of the earth will know their salvation from God.
PREACHING THE PSALM
Psalm 40:1-11
Psalm 40 is possibly a combination of two psalms. Verses 1-11 are a song of thanksgiving while 12-17 (or possibly 13-17) are a lament. Our lection for today is the thanksgiving portion, and what the psalmist is grateful for is deliverance, though from what specifically, we cannot know. But, whatever it was, the deliverance so impressed the psalmist that he is not satisfied to express thanks with his words alone. He also intends to live thankfully, delighting to do God's will (v. 8).
Preaching possibilities:
1) It apparently took a long time for God to answer the psalmist's plea for help and draw him up from "the desolate pit." It took a while until God put his feet on solid ground once more. The psalmist says he "waited patiently," but we wonder. Can any of us do that? Don't we want our heavenly help right now? But often our answering God seems to demand patience. The psalmist does not indicate how he spent his time while waiting, but he may have wondered if he had placed his "one phone call" to the wrong party. Possibly he considered whether he should have called to one of the other gods. But he waited, and was delivered so dramatically that it placed a new song in his mouth. A helpful sermon could be composed on the theme, "What do we do while waiting for God's answer?"
2) Verse 9, "I have told the glad news of deliverance in the great congregation," is a powerful statement of the importance of testimony. What's the point of keeping one's thankfulness bottled up in one's own heart? Our love for God should motivate us to proclaim that he first loved us. The sermon idea is "News that shouldn't be kept quiet."
3) Verses 6-8, about the Lord's preference for an "open ear" over sacrifice and offering is quoted by the author of Hebrews (10:5-10) as evidence for his argument that Christ, the once-for-all sacrifice, replaces the old cultic sacrifices. In his day, of course, the psalmist was not repudiating the cult practices, but he was seeing the bigger picture: that only the offering of the self as well gave any meaning to the burnt sacrifices. The "you have given me an open ear" is literally, "you have bored ears for me." Is a sacrifice God wants from us today to devote energy and effort to really listening to the people around us as well as for God himself?
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
This poem, entitled Jabberwocky, is found in Chapter 1 of Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There. The poem is considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all nonsense poems in English. Our response to the poem may be much like Alice's when she says, "It seems to fill my head with ideas -- only I don't know exactly what they are."
I suspect there are folks in worship from week to week for whom the theological terminology we employ sounds like religious jabberwocky. "Justification," "sanctification," "regeneration," "glorification" -- these are words which we have inherited from our theological forebears, and we may even know what they mean. But I wonder if these words don't sound like nonsense to the average pewsitter. These words fill their heads with ideas -- they just don't know exactly what they are. The texts this week offer us an opportunity to interpret some of our religious jabberwocky.
Isaiah 49:1-7
There are a number of questions raised by this text that the interpreter might explore with much benefit. For example, is the call of God (v. 1) individual or universal? Are only a few "called" to do extraordinary deeds or to engage in special ministry, or is everyone called to a personal and ordinary ministry? This, in turn, invites questions related to vocation. Are our vocations God-given or self-selected? If God-given, is there a spiritual dimension to our vocation? If self-selected, how does one's faith commitments impact that vocation?
Whose purpose is it to glorify God (v. 3) -- only the specially called or all who claim faith in God? And how does one glorify God? The best definition that I have heard of what it means to glorify God is this -- we glorify God when we bring his reputation up to his character. In other words, when how we represent God (his reputation) matches who he really is (his character), then he is glorified.
Frustrations in faithful living (v. 4) are not uncommon. Spiritual depression is not the "unpardonable sin." The question is not will we at times become frustrated and depressed, or as Paul puts it, "grow weary in well doing" -- we most certainly will. Rather, the question is, what will we do about it? One solution offered by the text is to recognize that what we are called to do is not ultimately our business, but God's business (vv. 5-6). We are serving God, not ourselves. It is his mission, not ours. Its success rests in him, not in us. Our responsibility is one of faithfulness to the task to which we are called. Our labor is its own reward. For after all, it is the Holy One of Israel who has chosen us.
1 Corinthians 1:1-9
The church at Corinth was in serious trouble. Open disagreements (6:1 ff.), factionalism (1:10 ff.), insensitivity across social and class lines (11:17 ff.), ethical impropriety (5:1 ff.) and the beginnings of a spiritual class-ism (12:1 ff.) combined to create a situation that Paul could not ignore. After all, the church at Corinth came into existence in large measure as a result of Paul's preaching and ministry there. Having already returned to Corinth at least once with dubious results (2 Corinthians 2:1), Paul chose to address these various issues in writing.
In keeping with his practice when sending correspondence, Paul pens a word of greeting and thanksgiving before launching into the real purpose of his letter. We have seen these greetings in other Pauline epistles, so there is nothing particularly new here. Indeed, the temptation is to treat this introductory section rather lightly because it is so familiar. However, the familiar often presents opportunities for greater exploration than the unfamiliar, which requires a broader rather than deeper interpretation.
One contemporary issue that this passage invites us to address is that of religious language. Terms, concepts and ideas developed in one cultural context or historical period will often carry a different meaning -- or no meaning -- in a different context or period. The result is that words continue to be used long after an understanding of their meaning has been lost.
Take as an example the word "sanctified" in verse 2. When was the last time you heard that word used in a nonreligious setting? When it was used in a religious setting, did you have the sense that the speaker knew what he or she was talking about? Did you understand what the speaker was talking about? Given the increasing levels of biblical and theological illiteracy within congregations, can we assume that this term carries any meaning at all in contemporary churches? If not, then perhaps it would be productive to help folks recapture the content of the term, even if the term itself is abandoned.
"Sanctified" and "saints" (v. 2) come from the same root word having to do with holiness. Neither of these words refers primarily to ethical behavior -- how good one is -- but rather speaks to one's relationship to the one who is holy -- God. The concept, "holy," you will recall, means to be set apart, to have a dedicated use separate and apart from the secular or profane. Thus, one can have a "holy vessel" solely for ritual use; a "holy temple" set apart for the singular purpose of worshiping God; or a "holy people" who have a divine function beyond the secular.
Drawing on this well-established Hebrew understanding, Paul states that the Corinthian Christians are, first of all, "sanctified," that is, brought into relationship with God through the life and death of Jesus Christ. Believers are "made holy" in the sense of being made useful for the purposes of God. This does not refer to a change in their ethical makeup, although that may well happen, but to a change in their relationship to God. In Christ one becomes a vessel set apart for divine purposes.
Whereas the phrase "were sanctified" speaks to a passive event, something done to us, the phrase "called to be saints" is active, that is, something we are asked to be or do. This is the other half of the relationship equation. In Christ one is made useful to God, but the scope of one's usefulness depends upon one's willingness to consciously participate in the new standing before God. As Christians we are called to live lives that reflect a divine dimension in a wholly secular society. Jesus Christ laid the foundation for our usefulness before God -- the quality of that usefulness is up to us.
John 1:29-42
There is an interesting dynamic at work in the first chapter of John's gospel concerning John the Baptizer (to avoid confusion between the two Johns, John the Baptizer will be referred to as JB). John seems to go out of his way to have JB minimize his own role and to emphasize the role of Jesus. In verse 6, JB is introduced as one sent from God, but immediately a clear distinction is drawn between JB's "witness" and the "true light" who was to come. In verse 15, John gives a parenthetical statement to distinguish JB from the Word made flesh full of grace and truth. In verses 19-28 John records an interchange between JB and emissaries from the Pharisees in which JB stated in the strongest terms -- "did not deny, but confessed" -- that he was not the Messiah, nor would he accept the honored, eschatological role of the Messiah's forerunner (e.g. Elijah or the prophet). In fact, he would not even accept the role of sandal-strapper. In verses 29-34, JB piles evidence upon evidence in order to positively identify Jesus as the Son of God. Finally, in verses 35-37, JB gives permission to two of his followers to switch allegiance from himself to Jesus. What exactly is going on here?
Some scholars (e.g. John Muir, A Marginal Jew) point out that this emphasis in John to minimize the standing of JB vis-a-vis Jesus is no accident. They point to the presence of a cult (in the technical, non-derogatory sense of that term) centered around the memory, teaching and baptism of JB. It is John's purpose, therefore, to present evidence that JB himself deferred to Jesus and that any ideology that elevated JB over Jesus was ill-informed. For that very reason, John's is the only gospel that does not mention Jesus' baptism at the hands of JB.
A second important theme in today's passage is John's emphasis on Jesus as the "Lamb of God." Twice in two paragraphs John places this confessional designation into the mouth of JB. This fits into John's overall purpose of identifying Jesus' crucifixion with the paschal sacrifice. Chronology becomes a bit confusing when trying to synchronize the Passion narratives of the four gospels. Some of the gospels wish to identify the Last Supper with the Passover meal. John, by contrast, places the Last Supper before Passover (13:1) and has the crucifixion of Jesus occur on Passover itself. John's juxtaposition of these two events would have the dramatic effect of Jesus being crucified even as families were sacrificing their Passover lamb -- thus, John's early on designation of Jesus as the Lamb of God.
Another literary device employed by John throughout his gospel is seen in the response of JB's disciples to Jesus. They readily recognize Jesus as the Messiah. For John, Jesus' messiahship is self-evident to all except for those who willfully refuse to acknowledge the truth of Jesus. A further trait of those who recognize the Messiah is their eagerness to share the news of their discovery with others. John's is an evangelistic gospel, which is seen clearly already, in this first chapter.
A final theme of John's gospel previewed in this passage is Jesus' ability to see beyond the surface impressions and into the heart of the individual or situation. This is demonstrated first in the renaming of Simon to Cephas (Peter), but reoccurs in Jesus' encounters with other individuals (e.g. Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria). Therefore, just as a musical overture introduces in the beginning the various themes to be heard in the musical, so does John introduce his literary themes in this chapter-long prologue.
Application
The pastor during my youth was a gentle, caring and compassionate man. It was through his influence and encouragement that I made my way into the parish ministry. His sense of integrity and personhood came in large measure from his early years and continued connection with the rural South. Some years later I had the joy of serving with him in a staff position within a suburban setting. Only then did I realize his heavy usage of agricultural and rural metaphors. What in earlier years seemed commonplace was in a different setting, at a different time and to a different generation a hindrance more than a help to communication. Few people in that suburban congregation had any connection with rural America and therefore could not relate to his well-intentioned, though agricultural laden, sermonic efforts.
I don't hear many farm stories any more (although the Bible is full of them), but I do continue to hear a lot of "--ation" theological words. I sometimes wonder if these soul-stirring terms of a previous generation continue to command any relevance or understanding to contemporary society. It is not that the concepts behind the words are untrue or not helpful, but that the terminology used to represent the concepts has lost its power to communicate.
This loss of communicative power may be the result of the words having lost their currency -- they have simply fallen from the vocabulary of ordinary folk. But the loss may be the result of pastor-teachers relying more on the theological terms themselves and not adequately explaining the content of the terms.
The commentary section on Corinthians is an example of how one might recapture a term -- in this case "sanctified" -- by exploring its content. Similarly, one might devote a sermon to exploring why John chose the metaphor, "Lamb of God." The preacher's assumption that all who hear this phrase understand its meaning is a faulty assumption.
Questions one might explore are: What was the purpose of sacrifice within the Jewish system? Did the Passover sacrifice differ in substance and meaning from other animal sacrifices? If so, which sacrificial concept was John identifying with Jesus? Or was John combining two separate ideas into one new concept? What did the term "Lamb of God" say to John's audience? Is there contemporary terminology that communicates the same idea?
The Passover sacrifice of a lamb was related to freedom from bondage and was not a sin sacrifice. The animal sacrifice in the temple was a sin offering, but only for unintentional sins. For intentional acts of wrongdoing -- "sins of a high hand" -- there was no sacrifice. Restitution had to be made in other ways. Both of these concepts seem to be merged in John's gospel as he presents Jesus as a Passover sacrifice in whom sins are forgiven. John's audience heard both of these ideas combined in a new and richly evocative way. How we hear them depends upon the willingness of the preacher to take the time to explain the content of biblical images rather than merely using the images without context. Failure to re-incarnate theological terms for a contemporary audience runs the risk of speaking religious jabberwocky.
Alternative Applications
1) Isaiah 49:1-7: The connection between call and vocation is an interesting one. We usually think of our vocation as the work we are paid to do or the profession in which we are engaged. A thought-provoking twist on this idea is to consider that our vocation is to represent God to the world and that our employment is the way we engage in that vocation. If we were all included in the "call" of this passage, what would be the implication of this for how we approach our jobs? It might mean that God controls our future, not our supervisor; that God is the source of our income, not the payroll department. It might also mean that we are accountable to God, not the career advancement people, for the ethical decisions and behavior we exhibit in the workplace; and that the work we do is ultimately a ministry in service to God, not a box on the corporate organizational chart. If our vocation and call is to serve God, and the workplace is the arena for that service, then we will not say TGIF, but TGIM (Thank God Its Monday).
2) 1 Corinthians 1:1-9: Paul offers thanksgiving for the "grace of God" at work within the Corinthian church. God's grace is at work within every congregation of believers, though sometimes that grace is overlooked. As we move into this new calendar year, perhaps a service to celebrate God's grace gifts would provide a positive encouragement to the congregation toward more faithful living. How is the grace of God being demonstrated in your congregation? Who are the silent saints providing faithful witness to God's love? An invitation could be given for members of the congregation to tell of how another member has been used by God to touch their life. Index cards could be distributed during the service for members to record the names and actions of those in whom they had seen the grace of God at work. The cards could be collected toward the end of the service and read as a way of celebrating God's activity within the church.
3) John 1:29-42: At a time when competition influences almost everything we do, from out-selling the competition to out-growing the neighboring congregation, maybe we can learn a lesson in humility and servanthood from John the Baptizer. What was it about John that enabled him to place the ministry of Jesus ahead of his own? Here are some possible answers:
* A recognition that what we do is not about us, but about God.
* An awareness of God that allows us to see the movement of God in the world, even when others cannot.
* A desire that those around us realize their full potential, even if that requires us to release their loyalty to our agenda.
FIRST LESSON FOCUS
Isaiah 49:1-7
This is the second in the series of four Servant Songs that we find in the prophecies of Second Isaiah. The other three are found in Isaiah 42:1-4 (9), which we discussed last week; in Isaiah 50:4-9; and in Isaiah 52:13--53:12, which is known as the song of the Suffering Servant. These all were included in the prophet's proclamations to the Judean exiles in Babylonia between 550 and 538 B.C.
Among the group, this particular text is probably the most difficult for the preacher to interpret for a congregation. A decision has to be made as to how to understand the song. The temptation, of course, is to apply the passage immediately to the person of Christ, but that is to ignore the historical setting of the text.
The question is: Who speaks in this text? We could say that these are words of the prophet himself, and a number of commentators have chosen that option. But such a view contradicts verse 4 in which Israel is clearly called the servant. To overcome such difficulty, many scholars eliminate the word "Israel" from that verse, but there is little justification for such an omission. And as we saw last week, Israel is repeatedly called the Lord's servant in other passages in the Second Isaiah corpus.
The second option is to attribute the words of this passage to Israel, and that would certainly accord with the historical situation of that covenant people in Babylonian exile. Verse 4 seems to mirror the attitude of Israel portrayed in 40:27, for example, and verse 7 portrays Israel's despised place among the nations (cf. 53:2-3). But then, verses 5-6 contradict that attribution, for whoever speaks here is called to bring Israel back to her God. So is Israel the servant called to restore Israel? To overcome that difficulty, many scholars have maintained that the servant Israel refers to the faithful among the Israelites, whose task is to restore all of their people to their relationship with God. The servant, it is held, is an idealized segment of Israel, Israelites as they are meant to be and as God calls them to be.
Third, it is possible to interpret this text in relation to the new Israel in Jesus Christ, namely, in relation to the church, and I myself have used such an interpretation in an earlier year's edition of Emphasis. Certainly the role of the first covenant people, Israel of the Old Testament, is the same role to which the covenant people of the church are called.
As we meditate on this text anew, however, it seems that the best approach is to preserve the identification of the servant with Israel, as we did last week. But the servant in this passage is idealized. He is now the faithful among the Israelites, and the prophet identifies himself with those faithful. So we can say that servant, faithful Israel and the prophet himself are both speaking in this passage.
In that perspective, five emphases meet us from the text. First, the prophet's and Israel's servanthood are planned from the beginning by God. The Lord is working out his purpose of salvation, and so he has planned and called his servants of that purpose from the time when they were in the womb of their mothers (v. 1). The thought is reminiscent of the call of both the prophet Jeremiah (1:5) and the Apostle Paul (Galatians 1:15). God looks ahead in history and creates those whom he intends for his service. Could it be that is what he also did when he created us and brought us into his church?
Second, the text emphasizes the power of God's word (v. 2). Servants of God have no power within themselves to convert anyone or to bring anyone into relationship with the Lord. But God's servants are given his word, and that word is "sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit" (Hebrews 4:12). God's word, throughout the scriptures, is powerful, effective force, which brings about that of which it speaks (cf. Genesis 1:3; Isaiah 55:10-11). Jeremiah even says that the word is like a fire or "like a hammer which breaks a rock in pieces" (Jeremiah 23:28). So servants of the Lord are given one piece of equipment -- the Word of God -- and insofar as that is what they use in their mission, they may count on the power of the Lord (cf. Jeremiah 15:19-21).
Third, the servants of the Lord will often meet opposition to their words and deeds (v. 4). Very often the faithful find themselves in situations in which it seems that their efforts have produced no good fruit whatsoever, in which they think all of their labor is in vain. Certainly Second Isaiah and the faithful in exiled Israel experienced such feelings of futility, just as Christians today experience them. God's ongoing work is often hidden from human view, and it can seem as if he has a hand in no event or situation. But the faithful also know, as our text says, that the rewards of their labors are in the hands of God, that he is their strength in the midst of every difficult circumstance (vv. 4, 5), and that he is steadily, unfailingly working out his purpose of salvation.
Fourth, our text emphasizes that the saving purpose of God is not limited to one group or to one people or nation (vv. 6-7). God's plan is to save all people. "God so loved the world...." God wants to bring all folk into his saving fellowship, that they may have abundant life. And God uses his servants to further that universal purpose. There are no human limits to be set on the saving work of God.
Fifth, it is clear from our text that the Lord is the one who furnishes everything for his servants. He calls from the womb. He names his servants. He gives them his word. He sets the task. He furnishes the rewards. He supplies his strength. His worship is the goal of the work. Servants of the Lord cannot look to themselves for resources, for plans, for support, for objectives. All come from God, who has chosen them for his sole purpose. In the Lord alone are the motivation, the power and the purpose for servanthood.
That is not much different than what our Lord Jesus showed and taught us. Certainly he fulfilled the role of the true servant of God, and we finally have to see him as the fulfillment of this Servant Song. But he also instructed us. "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Mark 8:34). In other words, give up yourself, as if you were crucified, and let God work through you instead. Then all the ends of the earth will know their salvation from God.
PREACHING THE PSALM
Psalm 40:1-11
Psalm 40 is possibly a combination of two psalms. Verses 1-11 are a song of thanksgiving while 12-17 (or possibly 13-17) are a lament. Our lection for today is the thanksgiving portion, and what the psalmist is grateful for is deliverance, though from what specifically, we cannot know. But, whatever it was, the deliverance so impressed the psalmist that he is not satisfied to express thanks with his words alone. He also intends to live thankfully, delighting to do God's will (v. 8).
Preaching possibilities:
1) It apparently took a long time for God to answer the psalmist's plea for help and draw him up from "the desolate pit." It took a while until God put his feet on solid ground once more. The psalmist says he "waited patiently," but we wonder. Can any of us do that? Don't we want our heavenly help right now? But often our answering God seems to demand patience. The psalmist does not indicate how he spent his time while waiting, but he may have wondered if he had placed his "one phone call" to the wrong party. Possibly he considered whether he should have called to one of the other gods. But he waited, and was delivered so dramatically that it placed a new song in his mouth. A helpful sermon could be composed on the theme, "What do we do while waiting for God's answer?"
2) Verse 9, "I have told the glad news of deliverance in the great congregation," is a powerful statement of the importance of testimony. What's the point of keeping one's thankfulness bottled up in one's own heart? Our love for God should motivate us to proclaim that he first loved us. The sermon idea is "News that shouldn't be kept quiet."
3) Verses 6-8, about the Lord's preference for an "open ear" over sacrifice and offering is quoted by the author of Hebrews (10:5-10) as evidence for his argument that Christ, the once-for-all sacrifice, replaces the old cultic sacrifices. In his day, of course, the psalmist was not repudiating the cult practices, but he was seeing the bigger picture: that only the offering of the self as well gave any meaning to the burnt sacrifices. The "you have given me an open ear" is literally, "you have bored ears for me." Is a sacrifice God wants from us today to devote energy and effort to really listening to the people around us as well as for God himself?
