We Never Get It Right 'Til We're Right With God
Commentary
1 Samuel 8:4-11 (12-15) 16-20 (11:14-15)
The First Lesson is embedded in a book whose origin as a distinct text derives from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which divided the story of Israel’s monarchy into four sections (1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings). This book is probably the result of two or three sources which have been woven together by editors: (1) early traditions about Samuel and Saul; (2) editor-molded material brought together into a connected history, implying a critique of the events, deeming kingship as problematic, and so must be set under the rule of God and Samuel his prophet; and (3) incorporating the previous strand into the more Deuteronimistic (D) history (the result of sweeping religious reforms under King Josiah in 621 BC). The role of the last source not surprisingly entails that a central theme in the book is the struggle to remain obedient to Torah, to be God’s covenant people, and to inherit divine blessings. This lesson is the story of the development of kingship in Israel over Samuel’s objections.
The account begins with Samuel being approached in Ramah (a town about 25 miles north of Jerusalem) by the elders of Israel. They tell him his sons are not faithful as he has been, and they urge him to appoint a king like other nations had (8:4-5). This displeased Samuel (8:5). Yahweh tells him to give the people what they want, interpreting it as a rejection of him, for he is their true king (8:7). The Lord proceeds to record how the people have repeatedly forsaken him (a theme consistent with the book’s Deuteronomistic strand) (8:8). He has Samuel warn them what kings will do (8:9). Samuel complies, issuing the warning that the king will take the sons of the elders to administer his chariots, command the people, and reap his harvest (8:10-12). Their daughters will be made his cooks (8:13). The king will take over their fields and commandeer one tenth of their grain (8:14-15). He will take the elders’ possessions, effectively rendering them slaves (8:16-17). Then they will cry out, but the Lord will not answer (8:18). But the people of Israel refuse to listen, wanting a king like other nations (8:19-20). After a long narrative on how Saul was chosen to be king (chs.9-11), the lesson could end with Samuel’s direction to go to Gilgal (a town about 18 miles northeast of Jerusalem) to make Saul king (11:14-15).
An April Pew Research Center poll found that two-thirds of Americans were unhappy with the choice we have in the upcoming presidential election. Our lesson reminds us that the Old Testament Hebrews made political decisions which were not perfect, did not satisfy everyone. Sermons on the text should elaborate on the political circumstances leading to the establishment of a kingship in ancient Israel. For many it was seen as a poor choice, but not as wrong-headed as the alternative. It is obvious that sometimes none of the political options on hand is clearly appealing. But God (who himself was not that happy with the establishment of a kingdom in Israel [8:7]) still can bend human beings to come around to do the right thing eventually. Just as God used Israel’s kingdom to establish the Davidic line of leadership, manifest in Jesus, so today we may find if the decision about our next President and Congress and what they do less than ideal, the Lord may use their and our imperfections to accomplish his will. So let’s give the winners in November the kind of respect that God expected Israel to give Saul. Ultimately, the real power in the world, in American politics, is God and his use of our imperfect means to accomplish his will. Urge the congregation not to despair, then, over our present choices. Help them to consider the possibility that the winners of the election might be the Sauls and Davids of our era. No matter who’s running it, government is instituted by God, created to stop us from cutting each other’s throats, and so deserves our respect.
2 Corinthians 4:13--5:1
The Second Lesson is part of a letter written by Paul to address strained relations with the Corinthian church which had further deteriorated during the period after 1 Corinthians was written. Chapters 10-13 are so different in style and tone from the first chapters from which the lesson is drawn as to lead many scholars to conclude that they are the “severe letter” mentioned in 2:4.
In this text, Paul offers a further defense of his ministry, explaining the roots of his courage to keep on facing all the challenges. With likely reference to Psalm 116:10 he claims that belief leads to confession of faith (4:13), a confession that the Lord who raised Jesus will raise the faithful (4:14). He refers to grace extending more and more, and so more and more might increase thanksgiving (4:15).
Paul proceeds to claim that in the afflictions endured he does not lose heart. Relying on images typical of Hellenistic, popular philosophy (Greek philosophical dualism) and also Jewish expectations about the End, he speaks of our outer nature [ekso hemown, meaning the “outward of us”] wasting away so that our inner nature [eso hemown, literally “inward of us”] may be renewed (4:16-17). We do not look at what can be seen for it is temporary, but at the eternal [aionieos] which cannot be seen (4:18). If the earthly tent [oika, literally house, a common Hellenistic term for the body] is destroyed, we have a building [oikodome] from God in the heavens (5:1). Paul seems clearly here to be relying on Greek dualistic conceptions of human nature as body and soul.
For some time, at least as recently as May, the polls like Ipsos/ABC News suggest that the economy and the inflation are the most important issues in determining how Americans will vote in the upcoming presidential election. But this lesson issues the challenge that we come to realize that the things of the moment are wasting away. In other words, from God’s point of view, looking at life with an appreciation that grace is extending throughout the universe and that the faithful will be raised (4:14), there are other matters more important than our economic situation. Maybe the real issues in this election are over who can best preserve international peace, treat the immigrants and the marginalized well, who really will respect the Constitution and the rule of law. Our lesson prods us away from thinking about which party or candidate best meets our personal needs, but which platform or candidate will when elected move America towards glorifying the things of God (love, peace, justice).
This sort of sermon should not be partisan. But in the name of faith’s relevance for daily life in which we all believe, it is not meddling in politics to get the faithful thinking about which particular issues our faith would have us keep in mind in how we vote.
Mark 3:20-35
The gospel is again rooted in the first of the synoptic gospels, a book that was likely the source of the other gospels, perhaps based on oral traditions of the passion narrative and accounts of Jesus’ sayings (the so-called Q-source). Probably written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, this anonymous work is traditionally ascribed to John Mark, usually referred to as an associate of Paul (Acts 12:12-25; 15:37; Colossians 4:10) or as Peter’s scribe (1 Peter 5:13). Some speculate that the original audience was the church in Rome (esp. Gentiles), as this gospel presumes readers unfamiliar with Jewish customs and Palestinian geography (see 7:2-4,31), but it also could have been written for Palestinian Christians.
The account is a story concerning Jesus’ power, including the allegations about him and teachings on the sin against the Holy Spirit as well as who His true kindred are. Though much of the text appears in the other synoptic gospels (Mathew 12:22-32,46-50; Luke 11:14-23; 8:1-19), Mark’s version is unique. Only in his version does the account clearly occur in Jesus’ hometown (Capernaum, according to Mark [3:19b; 2:1]). He is reported to have been surrounded by crowds, even to the point of precluding his having time to eat. Again, unique to the Markan version, Pharisees and others reportedly claim he is crazy, caused by possession by the pagan god Beelzebul (vv.20-22). (Some translations suggest that it was Jesus’ family who had this fear, but others say it was really all those intimate with him who kept these feelings.) Jesus is said to respond to Jerusalem Pharisees making this charge by offering parables. He contends that he could have cast out demons were he part of them, for a house divided against itself could not stand (vv.23-26). He then utters the famous condemnation of the unforgivable sin — the sin against the Holy Spirit, though all other sins will be forgiven (vv.28-29). The teaching was uttered by Jesus against those who had rejected him for having an unclean spirit, linking the Spirit to demons (v.30), presumably shedding light on what the sin against the Holy Spirit is.
Mary and Jesus’ siblings come to see Him (vv.21,31-32). Some scholars suggest that references to his siblings might merely indicate Jesus’ relatives (cousins, etc.). Only in Mark is this event linked to the concern that Jesus might be crazy, another indication of this gospel’s emphasis on the blindness of those nearest to Jesus. He responds that his family are his followers, those who do God’s will (vv.33-35). The fact that Jesus’ followers could be sisters and his mother might suggest that women were among his followers.
Several possibilities for sermons emerge from this lesson. The text invites a feminist/womanist stress on women (in the family of Jesus) being among his most important followers of our Lord. Another possibility is to recognize that his family or at least those closest to Jesus feared he might be crazy. This suggests that those who know Jesus best (church-goers) may not know him well at all. A third option, which best fits the overall theme of the other lessons in this elections season, is to focus on the theme of the sin against the Holy Spirit. Note how this is a much disputed topic, for many the only unforgivable sin is unfaith, rejecting the Holy Spirit ( Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol.II/1, p.201; Luther’s Works, Vol.19, p.48). But then stress the good news that each of the flock can be assured of her/his salvation, that all their sins are forgiven.
This good news has implications for the upcoming election. No matter what we might think personally of the candidates, all are forgiven. No sin, except unfaith, disqualifies someone from salvation or from the respect we owe other Christians. This insight could go a long way towards “civilizing” the upcoming election, towards appreciating that the guy or gal on the other side is no worse a sinner than any of us. This God-insight can help us get things right in our engagements about the upcoming election. Entrance into the summer months, in the Spirit of the season after Pentecost and its message of living the Christian life, makes it a good time to preach sermons that push the flock to consider looking at our world in light of God’s grace. Without that perspective, we are likely to have the wrong priorities.
The First Lesson is embedded in a book whose origin as a distinct text derives from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which divided the story of Israel’s monarchy into four sections (1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings). This book is probably the result of two or three sources which have been woven together by editors: (1) early traditions about Samuel and Saul; (2) editor-molded material brought together into a connected history, implying a critique of the events, deeming kingship as problematic, and so must be set under the rule of God and Samuel his prophet; and (3) incorporating the previous strand into the more Deuteronimistic (D) history (the result of sweeping religious reforms under King Josiah in 621 BC). The role of the last source not surprisingly entails that a central theme in the book is the struggle to remain obedient to Torah, to be God’s covenant people, and to inherit divine blessings. This lesson is the story of the development of kingship in Israel over Samuel’s objections.
The account begins with Samuel being approached in Ramah (a town about 25 miles north of Jerusalem) by the elders of Israel. They tell him his sons are not faithful as he has been, and they urge him to appoint a king like other nations had (8:4-5). This displeased Samuel (8:5). Yahweh tells him to give the people what they want, interpreting it as a rejection of him, for he is their true king (8:7). The Lord proceeds to record how the people have repeatedly forsaken him (a theme consistent with the book’s Deuteronomistic strand) (8:8). He has Samuel warn them what kings will do (8:9). Samuel complies, issuing the warning that the king will take the sons of the elders to administer his chariots, command the people, and reap his harvest (8:10-12). Their daughters will be made his cooks (8:13). The king will take over their fields and commandeer one tenth of their grain (8:14-15). He will take the elders’ possessions, effectively rendering them slaves (8:16-17). Then they will cry out, but the Lord will not answer (8:18). But the people of Israel refuse to listen, wanting a king like other nations (8:19-20). After a long narrative on how Saul was chosen to be king (chs.9-11), the lesson could end with Samuel’s direction to go to Gilgal (a town about 18 miles northeast of Jerusalem) to make Saul king (11:14-15).
An April Pew Research Center poll found that two-thirds of Americans were unhappy with the choice we have in the upcoming presidential election. Our lesson reminds us that the Old Testament Hebrews made political decisions which were not perfect, did not satisfy everyone. Sermons on the text should elaborate on the political circumstances leading to the establishment of a kingship in ancient Israel. For many it was seen as a poor choice, but not as wrong-headed as the alternative. It is obvious that sometimes none of the political options on hand is clearly appealing. But God (who himself was not that happy with the establishment of a kingdom in Israel [8:7]) still can bend human beings to come around to do the right thing eventually. Just as God used Israel’s kingdom to establish the Davidic line of leadership, manifest in Jesus, so today we may find if the decision about our next President and Congress and what they do less than ideal, the Lord may use their and our imperfections to accomplish his will. So let’s give the winners in November the kind of respect that God expected Israel to give Saul. Ultimately, the real power in the world, in American politics, is God and his use of our imperfect means to accomplish his will. Urge the congregation not to despair, then, over our present choices. Help them to consider the possibility that the winners of the election might be the Sauls and Davids of our era. No matter who’s running it, government is instituted by God, created to stop us from cutting each other’s throats, and so deserves our respect.
2 Corinthians 4:13--5:1
The Second Lesson is part of a letter written by Paul to address strained relations with the Corinthian church which had further deteriorated during the period after 1 Corinthians was written. Chapters 10-13 are so different in style and tone from the first chapters from which the lesson is drawn as to lead many scholars to conclude that they are the “severe letter” mentioned in 2:4.
In this text, Paul offers a further defense of his ministry, explaining the roots of his courage to keep on facing all the challenges. With likely reference to Psalm 116:10 he claims that belief leads to confession of faith (4:13), a confession that the Lord who raised Jesus will raise the faithful (4:14). He refers to grace extending more and more, and so more and more might increase thanksgiving (4:15).
Paul proceeds to claim that in the afflictions endured he does not lose heart. Relying on images typical of Hellenistic, popular philosophy (Greek philosophical dualism) and also Jewish expectations about the End, he speaks of our outer nature [ekso hemown, meaning the “outward of us”] wasting away so that our inner nature [eso hemown, literally “inward of us”] may be renewed (4:16-17). We do not look at what can be seen for it is temporary, but at the eternal [aionieos] which cannot be seen (4:18). If the earthly tent [oika, literally house, a common Hellenistic term for the body] is destroyed, we have a building [oikodome] from God in the heavens (5:1). Paul seems clearly here to be relying on Greek dualistic conceptions of human nature as body and soul.
For some time, at least as recently as May, the polls like Ipsos/ABC News suggest that the economy and the inflation are the most important issues in determining how Americans will vote in the upcoming presidential election. But this lesson issues the challenge that we come to realize that the things of the moment are wasting away. In other words, from God’s point of view, looking at life with an appreciation that grace is extending throughout the universe and that the faithful will be raised (4:14), there are other matters more important than our economic situation. Maybe the real issues in this election are over who can best preserve international peace, treat the immigrants and the marginalized well, who really will respect the Constitution and the rule of law. Our lesson prods us away from thinking about which party or candidate best meets our personal needs, but which platform or candidate will when elected move America towards glorifying the things of God (love, peace, justice).
This sort of sermon should not be partisan. But in the name of faith’s relevance for daily life in which we all believe, it is not meddling in politics to get the faithful thinking about which particular issues our faith would have us keep in mind in how we vote.
Mark 3:20-35
The gospel is again rooted in the first of the synoptic gospels, a book that was likely the source of the other gospels, perhaps based on oral traditions of the passion narrative and accounts of Jesus’ sayings (the so-called Q-source). Probably written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, this anonymous work is traditionally ascribed to John Mark, usually referred to as an associate of Paul (Acts 12:12-25; 15:37; Colossians 4:10) or as Peter’s scribe (1 Peter 5:13). Some speculate that the original audience was the church in Rome (esp. Gentiles), as this gospel presumes readers unfamiliar with Jewish customs and Palestinian geography (see 7:2-4,31), but it also could have been written for Palestinian Christians.
The account is a story concerning Jesus’ power, including the allegations about him and teachings on the sin against the Holy Spirit as well as who His true kindred are. Though much of the text appears in the other synoptic gospels (Mathew 12:22-32,46-50; Luke 11:14-23; 8:1-19), Mark’s version is unique. Only in his version does the account clearly occur in Jesus’ hometown (Capernaum, according to Mark [3:19b; 2:1]). He is reported to have been surrounded by crowds, even to the point of precluding his having time to eat. Again, unique to the Markan version, Pharisees and others reportedly claim he is crazy, caused by possession by the pagan god Beelzebul (vv.20-22). (Some translations suggest that it was Jesus’ family who had this fear, but others say it was really all those intimate with him who kept these feelings.) Jesus is said to respond to Jerusalem Pharisees making this charge by offering parables. He contends that he could have cast out demons were he part of them, for a house divided against itself could not stand (vv.23-26). He then utters the famous condemnation of the unforgivable sin — the sin against the Holy Spirit, though all other sins will be forgiven (vv.28-29). The teaching was uttered by Jesus against those who had rejected him for having an unclean spirit, linking the Spirit to demons (v.30), presumably shedding light on what the sin against the Holy Spirit is.
Mary and Jesus’ siblings come to see Him (vv.21,31-32). Some scholars suggest that references to his siblings might merely indicate Jesus’ relatives (cousins, etc.). Only in Mark is this event linked to the concern that Jesus might be crazy, another indication of this gospel’s emphasis on the blindness of those nearest to Jesus. He responds that his family are his followers, those who do God’s will (vv.33-35). The fact that Jesus’ followers could be sisters and his mother might suggest that women were among his followers.
Several possibilities for sermons emerge from this lesson. The text invites a feminist/womanist stress on women (in the family of Jesus) being among his most important followers of our Lord. Another possibility is to recognize that his family or at least those closest to Jesus feared he might be crazy. This suggests that those who know Jesus best (church-goers) may not know him well at all. A third option, which best fits the overall theme of the other lessons in this elections season, is to focus on the theme of the sin against the Holy Spirit. Note how this is a much disputed topic, for many the only unforgivable sin is unfaith, rejecting the Holy Spirit ( Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol.II/1, p.201; Luther’s Works, Vol.19, p.48). But then stress the good news that each of the flock can be assured of her/his salvation, that all their sins are forgiven.
This good news has implications for the upcoming election. No matter what we might think personally of the candidates, all are forgiven. No sin, except unfaith, disqualifies someone from salvation or from the respect we owe other Christians. This insight could go a long way towards “civilizing” the upcoming election, towards appreciating that the guy or gal on the other side is no worse a sinner than any of us. This God-insight can help us get things right in our engagements about the upcoming election. Entrance into the summer months, in the Spirit of the season after Pentecost and its message of living the Christian life, makes it a good time to preach sermons that push the flock to consider looking at our world in light of God’s grace. Without that perspective, we are likely to have the wrong priorities.
