What does it take to be God's person?
Commentary
Object:
Whether we are high-born or low, rich or poor, male or female, working for ourselves or others -- human beings stand before God equally. Jesus taught that if we have much, much will be required of us. If we have little, like the widow paying her late husband’s temple tax with a mite, we do what we can for the kingdom of God.
But there is more to being “God’s person” than what we can do for the church or the kingdom of God. There are standards: We are to be kind, generous, gentle, and patient. We are to love our neighbors to the same degree that we love ourselves. We are to put our intelligence, strength, and purpose to work for God’s purpose in this world. That means discernment, as well -- what is it God is doing in the world? What does God want for the world?
But we do not do this in order to gain God’s praise. We do this in response to the care and the gifts God has already given to us. We do this out of love and gratitude, not duty and honor. And certainly we do not do this to gain heaven. Heaven is God’s free gift. The question we constantly must ask is: “Does my life show the grace of God to the world?” If it does not, we apologize, both to God and those we have hurt or offended, so that peace can be restored to our lives, to the lives of those around us, and to the world at large. This is not easy, but today’s lessons give us instruction in how to make that so.
2 Samuel 11:26--12:13a
There is a person missing from this story. Even in the first paragraph, “the wife of Uriah” is said to have “made lamentation” for her dead husband, not Bathsheba. It may be, as some commentators have said, that the author wants to emphasize that she has been stolen from her husband’s home and raped by the king. This is a strong example of the fact that a woman in David’s day had no identity aside from the man who owned her, be it her father or her husband, or if both of those men were dead a near relative, even her brother. A new widow like Bathsheba will be known by her husband’s name until she is claimed as wife by another man.
She has a prescribed period of ritual mourning: a week of intense grief, during which she is attended by friends and family so that she is relieved of her duties as wife and mother. She will not wash her hair nor groom herself. During this time she is expected to wail and cry, and if she has the money set aside, she may hire professional mourners to do the same. Unlike many of the nations around them, the Israelites were not allowed to cut themselves in their grief [see Leviticus 19:28]. After that time she may begin to pick up her usual duties, but she is allowed a month away from the rest of the world while she continues to work through her grief in private.
For movie fans, there is a scene in Dances with Wolves that illustrates all of this. When Kevin Costner stumbles across a Sioux woman near a river, she is disheveled, dazed, and bleeding. He gathers her up and carries her back to her village, unaware that she is ritually grieving her husband’s death. She has been truly in love and her grief is intense, so there is a lot of blood. Later, when he learns how to communicate with the chief, he is told that this is how a widow grieves in their society. She had left the village to grieve alone and cut herself to show that she did not want to go on living without the man she loved.
King David gave Bathsheba this time of intense grieving, and then immediately brought her to the palace and married her. We might be shocked at the thought that David expected her to simply walk into the palace and be married, but he is actually protecting her [see Deuteronomy 22:22]. As king, David would be above the law in practice, though not in the eyes of God; even so, his reputation would suffer. This speedy marriage would see to it that most people (aside from those who helped David arrange for Bathsheba to come to the palace) will probably assume that she was pregnant by Uriah. Only Uriah and David knew that, out of consideration for his troops who were engaged in battle and unable to sleep with their wives, Uriah had slept on the ground. Now Uriah is dead at David’s command. So Bathsheba goes to the palace, and he marries her.
Marriage in Bible times was a very different proposition than it is in the Western world today. Women were property, sold by their fathers (or whatever male relative had authority over them -- see above) to a man of his choosing, often at a very early age (at the point of her first menstrual period she was considered to be a woman). She had no power to leave whatever man she then belonged to [see Deuteronomy 22:13-19]. The Old Testament actually does allow a woman the right to say no [see Genesis 24]. However, among those with limited means daughters were often seen as a burden in the father’s household, someone who had to be fed, clothed, and housed but who could do no work that would bring in income [see, for example,Genesis 29]. Her main value was to produce sons for her husband who would eventually be able to help him work his land and keep his flocks. This attitude is still apparent today, as we are learning regularly on the news. [For more on this subject, go to the internet and enter “child brides” in your search engine. Be prepared to be uncomfortable, especially in how widespread this practice of selling children as young as six into marriage is -- and the consequences.]
So “Uriah’s wife” was allowed to mourn him for one week, or at best one month of intense grief before David married her. Not that anyone expected her to “be over” Uriah at that point; she was expected to be in mourning (though not as intense) for a year. Of course, she might be relieved at his death if he was a hard man to live with. Even so she will surely be grieving, as can be attested by those who have experienced the death of a spouse (or a divorce), no matter how bad the spouse was. There is a resurgence of grief at each holiday, as well as the anniversary of the death or birthday of the deceased, for several years. As time goes on, that missing spouse will be mourned on every landmark within the family -- weddings, children’s birthdays, graduations, the birth of a new grandchild, and so on. While we don’t wear solid black after the death of someone close anymore, many widows and widowers continue to wear their wedding rings for as long as they want others to know they are unavailable for new intimate relationships.
Soon, the court prophet Nathan (whose name means “gift” or “offering”) comes to David with this story of theft -- the theft of “one little ewe lamb” from a poor man. Here again, it is important to educate an urban audience: no shepherd would slaughter a young ewe (female) lamb! One keeps the ewes for breeding. No females, no new generations of sheep. One slaughters male lambs to eat, because sheep are herd animals and would normally have a single ram servicing a flock of ewes. The poor man in Nathan’s parable had already put out money for this lamb [v. 12:1]; he cannot afford to buy more sheep, so he must depend on this little ewe which he had brought up to bear lambs. To take away his only ewe is to condemn him to destitution. One additional note: This business of keeping the lamb in the house and feeding it from his own plate sounds a bit odd to modern ears, but even today in that part of the world a poor family will bring their only lamb into the house, especially at night, in order to protect it. Many ancient houses that have been excavated in Israel actually have a hole dug in one corner of the house to pen animals in. It has been said that it might even have been in a space like this that Mary had Jesus.
The rich man in Nathan’s story is despicable. There can be no excuse for him to take his neighbor’s lamb when he already has so many. His sheep would not be so far from his house that he could not send someone to the fields to bring back a lamb to slaughter to serve a guest. David has so far had a reputation for caring for the poor in his kingdom. He is outraged by Nathan’s parable and pronounces a sentence of death for the rich man. Nathan has succeeded in trapping David by his own words of judgment.
Now, Nathan might have heard about this situation between David and Uriah in any number of ways. One of the servants who had been made a part of this event could have repented for his complicity by telling Nathan what had happened. It might be that one of David’s jealous concubines told. Or Saul’s daughter Michal, whose nasty temper toward David had reduced her to the status of being his wife in name only, might have sent for the prophet. But as far as David is concerned, Nathan’s knowledge has come directly from God.
That leads us to the reason that King David was considered to be “God’s own man” despite this tawdry double sin of adultery and murder. When he is confronted, he does not throw Nathan into a pit or order him killed, as later kings would do to their prophets. He listens to Nathan pronounce a sentence on him that anyone would dread: trouble and strife his whole life, rising from within his own household, but also involving the entire kingdom and all of the innocent citizens in it. He does not lie or hide his sin, he does not try to blame his failings on the woman -- he confesses that he has sinned and begs for God’s forgiveness.
Part of what this story is doing is teaching us that the sins of the leaders of any nation bring down trouble not just on the offender but on the entire nation, despite the fact that the people had no control over their leaders nor any choice as to who might rise to power. Their governments were not elected. They had no recourse if their king or high priests sinned. Nevertheless, the Bible recognizes that the errors of those in charge of the nation or the temple devastate not only those officials or institutions, but also create a definite “trickle down” effect on the people -- even leading to the fall of the nation.
It might be argued that David begged for forgiveness knowing that if he were forgiven he would keep Bathsheba as his wife, and with the hope that none of what Nathan prophesied would come true. That may be; there are always those who aren’t sorry for what they have done but are sorry that they have been caught and might be punished. In King David’s situation, he had pronounced that the “rich man” should die for the crime of theft. How much more would God do to him for the crimes he had committed?
Nathan says at once that David will not die for his sins (even though David himself had decreed this should be the punishment). God’s mercy is instantaneous to those who confess their sins. But in later chapters of 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, we see that all of what Nathan threatened came true: David will face civil war led by first his son Absalom, and then Adonijah, and the kingdom will not hold.
We may think that all of this is part of God’s punishment of David, but it would be equally true to say it is all the result of what kind of person David has become. He has moved from keeping his eye on God to keeping his eye on the best chances. The corrupting influence of affluence and power will continue to take its toll on Israel and its king, as even Solomon will experience. As Nathan points out, David has been acting poorly in secret, but his punishment will be very public. Those who live public lives are thus held accountable.
We live in an era where public figures enter into despicable crimes also. They think they are above the law, or at least unafraid that anyone will find out. But when they offend others in power, their sins may be very publicly atoned for. We seldom impose a death penalty on our elected leaders, but public mockery and loss of influence can force bad leaders into a self-imposed withdrawal from the scene. We need to take seriously the understanding that when our leaders fail to do their jobs there will be consequences for the nation.
Ephesians 4:1-16
The writer to the Ephesians has a similar message in this passage: He begs us to “lead a life worthy of the calling to which [we] have been called, [behaving] with... humility and gentleness... patience... love... maintain[ing] the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Like David, we are being called to account for our actions. This applies not only to leaders but also to everyone who calls themselves a part of the Body of Christ.
While the author of Ephesians is unknown, s/he certainly is familiar with the teaching of Paul, and this list of characteristics of the Christian person reflects that. This gives us another opportunity to refer to the “fruits of the Spirit” from Galatians 5:22-23, and to remind ourselves that these fruits are not simply given to those who follow Christ. It takes work on our part, just as it takes work to harvest the fruits of the earth.
Some years back, I finally had the opportunity to fulfill a dream -- learning to throw pots. It turned out to be harder than it looks. First, one has to work the clay into the texture one wants it to have. Too much water added leads to slime that cannot be counted on to stay in shape. Too little makes it nearly impossible to shape the clay. One then literally throws the clay onto the wheel and makes sure it is centered. If it is even a little off-center, the pot will be eccentric -- leaning wildly, slumping in on itself, even twisting. One of the pots I was working on did just that, and suddenly the top flew off and hit another potter in the shoulder.
I was mortified. “What am I doing wrong?” I wailed. The teacher came over and said, “You need to be gentler. You should guide the clay, not force it. Gently.”
“Oh,” I said sheepishly. “Well, no onehas ever said that to me before!”
Everyone laughed, and the tension went out of the room. In this way God sent me a prophet to point out where I needed to grow. So it is with each of the fruits of the Spirit. We aren’t handed these qualities without effort on our part. Need to work on patience? We can be certain to suddenly encounter numerous opportunities to practice: long, slow lines at the store, or a slow-moving vehicle in front of us in a place where we cannot swing out and pass. If we have the understanding that we are being offered practice time on those qualities we need to develop, we will soon harvest the resulting character trait. We will be easier to get along with, less demanding, less arrogant, less insecure.
Part of the reason that the writer of Ephesians is urging the hearers to “bear with one another in love” is that the church had already been squabbling over several issues. The problem of inclusion of Gentile converts is evident in several places in the New Testament: Did they need to be circumcised? Must they follow all of the laws of the Torah? If a woman was converted, did she need to leave her unbelieving husband? Since there were far fewer men than women in early Christian groups, could a woman marry a non-believer, or did he have to convert before they married? Could eunuchs be baptized, or did the Levitical law that excluded them from the temple exclude them from the community of Christ as well? The argument between those who would include everyone who came to Christ in the fellowship of believers and those who held to the Levitical law kept the early church in an uproar.
Down through the centuries, disagreements have occurred that split believers again and again. We have so many denominations because different groups held opinions that were incompatible and the parties involved were intransigent. We may all read the same Bible (more or less), but our conclusions about what is meant in the scriptures have divided us.
One interesting point the author makes here points to another disagreement within the early church: the question of whether Jesus “descended into hell” as it is included in the Apostle’s Creed, or if it is “impossible for God to go to hell.” This reflects the conflict over the exact nature of Jesus: Was he the Son of God? God living in human flesh? A human being adopted by God? None of these questions could be solved by a study of the scriptures. This was all new. The New Testament we have today was not even written when these questions were first raised. It may seem incredible to today’s Christians that these were serious issues to the average follower of Jesus in the first century, but discussions on the nature of Christ continued into the fourth century. In the summer of 325 CE the Council of Nicaea worked on what the various churches had to say about the original teachings of the apostles. (For a fine discussion about that council and what they accomplished, go to http://www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea-2.html.) The result was that the Roman Catholic church broke away from the Orthodox church (today known as the “Eastern” Orthodox churches), which continues to rely on apostolic tradition. The western churches have allowed rethinking of the ancient traditions in light of new understandings of the world both now and in apostolic times.
The Protestant Reformation caused another schism, which even resulted in books of the Bible being deleted in the Protestant churches. All of those books Protestants call “The Apocrypha” had been part of the Bible up to that time. The Reformers even discussed deleting the book of Revelation and the letter of James, the latter because it seemed to go against salvation by faith alone, and the former as being too confusing for the average person to read and understand. Other splits within the Protestant churches continue even to the present day, usually based on customs, but also based on how each group understands scripture.
As one example, the Methodist church was rent in the 19th century by the question of slavery. Those who wanted to retain their slaves found places in the scripture where slavery is sanctioned [see Philemon, Galatians 4:1-2, and Ephesians 6:5], while those who opposed slavery pointed to other passages [1 Corinthians 7:23 and Galatians 3:28]. Arguments like this went on for years, even decades, until the church split into the Methodist church-South and -North. Part of the problem was that several of the bishops of the church owned slaves and were unable to free them under the laws of the states in which they lived, but there were many who believed that slavery was a part of God’s plan.
Then there is the problem of scandal within the church. Any pastor who has served a church where there has been a treasurer who embezzled funds, a choir director who committed sexual assaults on music department members, or a pastor who defiled his or her vows can tell you that the splits that occur in a congregation leave scars for a full generation -- or longer -- and lead to further scandals and financial problems. The sexual misbehavior of pastors and priests has torn congregations and denominations apart, and the aftershocks will be felt for decades more as people win huge monetary suits against the churches.
We are all familiar with the highly emotional arguments over the acceptability of abortion, homosexuality, and women in ministry, and these arguments have already led to splits in several denominations. We can pit Bible verse against Bible verse without much effect on those who do not hold our point of view.
The author of Ephesians thinks he has a solution: If we could have the proper level of humility, it might be that we could all worship together. But so far, humility hasn’t much tread in the current debates. But in that we are clearly not very different from our ancestors in the faith.
John 6:24-35
This is one of those gospel stories that we have hear over and over, to the detriment of its meaning. We read this from the pulpit and the congregation doesn’t lean forward in anticipation; they’ve heard it before. We read it to ourselves and groan: How are we going to preach this with any kind of enthusiasm? The longer you’ve been preaching the harder it is, rather than easier. There is just too much temptation to recycle old sermons.
One way around this is to dig deeper. Not more deeply into the story itself -- the story is short and straightforward, but more deeply into the gospel writers’ purposes in telling this story. The story of the feeding of the 5,000 is one of the few stories that is in all four gospels and told in much the same way. So we may look first at one difference here in John’s version: whereas the synoptic gospels say that the disciples have the five loaves and two fish, John says “There is a boy here with five barley loaves and two fish.” Barley loaves were the kind of bread eaten by the very poor, barley being easily grown, while wheat was preferred by those who could afford it. So the miracle begins with a boy rather than the men who surround Jesus, and the offering is what the very poor would bring with them.
Second, the monetary value of the bread is used in the synoptic gospels, while John reports that this amounted to six months’ wages for the average worker.
Finally, we might note that in the synoptics the disciples come to Jesus at the end of the day, reminding him that people need to eat so he should send them away to buy food. Nothing goes into the gospels accidently. The synoptics portray Jesus as regularly going without food or rest as long as there are crowds needing attention. They are also intent on showing the disciples as a group being unaware of Jesus’ true stature and his miraculous abilities. But John has Jesus ask the functional question of one of the two studious disciples (Philip was the one who brought Nathanael, whom Jesus had seen studying the scriptures “under the fig tree” in John 1:47-49). Philip gives him the logical answer: “Six months’ wages would not be enough bread for each of them to get a little.” Jesus gets a faith answer from Peter’s brother Andrew: “There is a boy here with very little.”
Matthew and Mark tell of the death of John the Baptist at the hands of Herod as driving Jesus to want some time alone. The crowds follow him into the wilderness, which leads to this story. Luke doesn’t talk about the death of John, but says that Herod is puzzled over what he is hearing about Jesus: He is Elijah come back, he is John alive again. In his gospel, Luke says that Jesus invites the twelve to accompany him to a quiet place, which turns out to be Bethsaida, not the countryside.
John, on the other hand, prefaces the miracle story with a discussion between Jesus and “the Jews” (meaning the Jewish authorities) about what he said to a man who had been paralyzed for 38 years: “Stand up, take your mat, and walk.” Carrying a burden was not allowed on the sabbath, which was the day Jesus did this healing. The authorities apparently decided to focus on this aspect of the healing, rather than the impossibility of this man walking after being paralyzed for most of his life. If they focused on the latter, they would have had to have a conversation on how and why Jesus was able to do this thing. It’s always easier to nitpick rather than dig, and hard to recognize true power in an unexpected guise.
Jesus asserts that he has this power and the right to exercise it whenever and wherever, because he is doing just what his Father does. He claims the power to raise the dead, to give life to whomever he chooses, and not only that but to judge, because “The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son.” If they do not honor Jesus, they do not honor the Father either. This is not simply heresy in Judaism, it is sacrilege! But Jesus points to the works he has been doing and says that they “testify on my behalf.” He accuses them of disbelief even in the writings of Moses if they do not know how he is doing the miracles he is doing.
John then goes directly to the story of the feeding of the 5,000, followed by the story of Jesus walking on water, just as it is in all three of the synoptic gospels. John follows the simple outlines of the latter story, not including Peter’s request that Jesus command him to walk to him on the water. Matthew is the only one who includes Peter in that episode. He has a point to make in doing that, just as John has a point in what follows in his gospel.
John is still carrying on the thread of the argument that came before the feeding story. He portrays Jesus coming ashore at Capernaum, only to be greeted by another crowd. They have been seeking him, but Jesus says not for the right reasons. “[Y]ou are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life....” They reply that their ancestors were given manna in the wilderness, and Jesus replies that that was not the work of a man (Moses) but the gift of God. He declares that he is the bread of God that “comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Thus, the feeding of the 5,000 is a story John uses to illustrate Jesus’ claim to be the bread of life.
When we look at all of the gospels this way, we see that John’s point is quite different from the point the other evangelists are making. They are showing us Jesus’ unique powers, but they do not go as far as John does. The two miracle stories are enough for them. For John, who is writing perhaps a century after the resurrection, there is an argument against those Jews who still resist Jesus’ claim that God is his Father, and that God has given Jesus powers not only to heal and feed the multitude, but to give them life -- and not just life in this world, but in the world to come.
The modern world would deny even that Jesus had remarkable powers. One professor at the seminary I attended said that he thought it probable that no one would set out to listen to Jesus without packing a lunch before he went. After all, there weren’t supermarkets in those days. So Jesus knew that if he started passing food into the crowd the people would know it was time to eat, and those who had more than they needed would drop their excess into the baskets being passed -- so all would have plenty to eat.
But third-world countries do have food vendors. Some of them have established places of business, even if there are not tables and chairs made available. Others have carts or wander the marketplace with their wares on their backs, crying out what they have to offer. So it is not that people have to pack food; they can and do buy from these vendors.
It is possible, of course, that Jesus is demonstrating his understanding of human nature: I can’t eat in front of other people if they don’t have food, nor while I’m supposed to be listening to this person preach. But if given permission by announcing that it’s time to eat and breaking out something to pass, then I can take out my lunch, meager though it may be, and eat. If the person next to me has nothing with him, then I can share a little of my own food.
To the gospel writers, that’s not the point. They are here to tell us that Jesus was unique, powerful, compassionate, and able to meet people’s needs. They are here to open our hearts not just so we will take care of one another, but so we will learn to turn to Jesus, knowing that we will be cared for. It’s very hard to be caring and sharing if there is nothing coming back to us. Caregivers need to be cared for as well.
We as the church call upon our members often to care for others, to share their earthly goods, to give to the upkeep of the church, to give groceries to our food bank, to give to missions and/or missionaries, to work for social justice. We sometimes run the risk of exhausting our people! Everyone who is happy, healthy, and comfortable can certainly afford to share. But the church is often the last refuge for people who are sad, angry, alone, sick, and worried about whether they will be able to pay the rent or mortgage each month. We are definitely a refuge for the elderly, whose children often live far away and are generally unavailable, either because they don’t see their parents’ daily needs or because the elderly are ashamed to ask them for help. When we turn repeatedly to our congregation with requests, and never with comfort, personal attention, or the promise of care when they are in need, we can wind up with congregations of burnt-out people. Just as we pastors need to know that we are appreciated and loved by our congregants, they need to know that we are available and care about them.
For the same reason, we need to tend to our own relationship with Jesus. If we expect to be able to carry the burdens of our congregations without the faith that God loves us and will care for us in times of trouble or want, what do we have to offer our members? If we only think of Jesus as being able to bring out the best in people, we miss the greatest gift God has for us: The certainty that God loves us and that there is a person we can go to when the world has become too much, too demanding, too troubling. We need to remember that Christ not only leads us out into the world, but he also is able to protect us from the world, to give us the space and peace that we need, and that he intends to give us rest, not just work, day after day. When we take advantage of that promise, then we will have our joy restored. And we will be able to help others to be in that same space.
Mother Teresa of Calcutta summed this up quite nicely when she said, “God does not call us to succeed, but to be faithful.” When we recognize this, we can relax and truly be God’s people.
But there is more to being “God’s person” than what we can do for the church or the kingdom of God. There are standards: We are to be kind, generous, gentle, and patient. We are to love our neighbors to the same degree that we love ourselves. We are to put our intelligence, strength, and purpose to work for God’s purpose in this world. That means discernment, as well -- what is it God is doing in the world? What does God want for the world?
But we do not do this in order to gain God’s praise. We do this in response to the care and the gifts God has already given to us. We do this out of love and gratitude, not duty and honor. And certainly we do not do this to gain heaven. Heaven is God’s free gift. The question we constantly must ask is: “Does my life show the grace of God to the world?” If it does not, we apologize, both to God and those we have hurt or offended, so that peace can be restored to our lives, to the lives of those around us, and to the world at large. This is not easy, but today’s lessons give us instruction in how to make that so.
2 Samuel 11:26--12:13a
There is a person missing from this story. Even in the first paragraph, “the wife of Uriah” is said to have “made lamentation” for her dead husband, not Bathsheba. It may be, as some commentators have said, that the author wants to emphasize that she has been stolen from her husband’s home and raped by the king. This is a strong example of the fact that a woman in David’s day had no identity aside from the man who owned her, be it her father or her husband, or if both of those men were dead a near relative, even her brother. A new widow like Bathsheba will be known by her husband’s name until she is claimed as wife by another man.
She has a prescribed period of ritual mourning: a week of intense grief, during which she is attended by friends and family so that she is relieved of her duties as wife and mother. She will not wash her hair nor groom herself. During this time she is expected to wail and cry, and if she has the money set aside, she may hire professional mourners to do the same. Unlike many of the nations around them, the Israelites were not allowed to cut themselves in their grief [see Leviticus 19:28]. After that time she may begin to pick up her usual duties, but she is allowed a month away from the rest of the world while she continues to work through her grief in private.
For movie fans, there is a scene in Dances with Wolves that illustrates all of this. When Kevin Costner stumbles across a Sioux woman near a river, she is disheveled, dazed, and bleeding. He gathers her up and carries her back to her village, unaware that she is ritually grieving her husband’s death. She has been truly in love and her grief is intense, so there is a lot of blood. Later, when he learns how to communicate with the chief, he is told that this is how a widow grieves in their society. She had left the village to grieve alone and cut herself to show that she did not want to go on living without the man she loved.
King David gave Bathsheba this time of intense grieving, and then immediately brought her to the palace and married her. We might be shocked at the thought that David expected her to simply walk into the palace and be married, but he is actually protecting her [see Deuteronomy 22:22]. As king, David would be above the law in practice, though not in the eyes of God; even so, his reputation would suffer. This speedy marriage would see to it that most people (aside from those who helped David arrange for Bathsheba to come to the palace) will probably assume that she was pregnant by Uriah. Only Uriah and David knew that, out of consideration for his troops who were engaged in battle and unable to sleep with their wives, Uriah had slept on the ground. Now Uriah is dead at David’s command. So Bathsheba goes to the palace, and he marries her.
Marriage in Bible times was a very different proposition than it is in the Western world today. Women were property, sold by their fathers (or whatever male relative had authority over them -- see above) to a man of his choosing, often at a very early age (at the point of her first menstrual period she was considered to be a woman). She had no power to leave whatever man she then belonged to [see Deuteronomy 22:13-19]. The Old Testament actually does allow a woman the right to say no [see Genesis 24]. However, among those with limited means daughters were often seen as a burden in the father’s household, someone who had to be fed, clothed, and housed but who could do no work that would bring in income [see, for example,Genesis 29]. Her main value was to produce sons for her husband who would eventually be able to help him work his land and keep his flocks. This attitude is still apparent today, as we are learning regularly on the news. [For more on this subject, go to the internet and enter “child brides” in your search engine. Be prepared to be uncomfortable, especially in how widespread this practice of selling children as young as six into marriage is -- and the consequences.]
So “Uriah’s wife” was allowed to mourn him for one week, or at best one month of intense grief before David married her. Not that anyone expected her to “be over” Uriah at that point; she was expected to be in mourning (though not as intense) for a year. Of course, she might be relieved at his death if he was a hard man to live with. Even so she will surely be grieving, as can be attested by those who have experienced the death of a spouse (or a divorce), no matter how bad the spouse was. There is a resurgence of grief at each holiday, as well as the anniversary of the death or birthday of the deceased, for several years. As time goes on, that missing spouse will be mourned on every landmark within the family -- weddings, children’s birthdays, graduations, the birth of a new grandchild, and so on. While we don’t wear solid black after the death of someone close anymore, many widows and widowers continue to wear their wedding rings for as long as they want others to know they are unavailable for new intimate relationships.
Soon, the court prophet Nathan (whose name means “gift” or “offering”) comes to David with this story of theft -- the theft of “one little ewe lamb” from a poor man. Here again, it is important to educate an urban audience: no shepherd would slaughter a young ewe (female) lamb! One keeps the ewes for breeding. No females, no new generations of sheep. One slaughters male lambs to eat, because sheep are herd animals and would normally have a single ram servicing a flock of ewes. The poor man in Nathan’s parable had already put out money for this lamb [v. 12:1]; he cannot afford to buy more sheep, so he must depend on this little ewe which he had brought up to bear lambs. To take away his only ewe is to condemn him to destitution. One additional note: This business of keeping the lamb in the house and feeding it from his own plate sounds a bit odd to modern ears, but even today in that part of the world a poor family will bring their only lamb into the house, especially at night, in order to protect it. Many ancient houses that have been excavated in Israel actually have a hole dug in one corner of the house to pen animals in. It has been said that it might even have been in a space like this that Mary had Jesus.
The rich man in Nathan’s story is despicable. There can be no excuse for him to take his neighbor’s lamb when he already has so many. His sheep would not be so far from his house that he could not send someone to the fields to bring back a lamb to slaughter to serve a guest. David has so far had a reputation for caring for the poor in his kingdom. He is outraged by Nathan’s parable and pronounces a sentence of death for the rich man. Nathan has succeeded in trapping David by his own words of judgment.
Now, Nathan might have heard about this situation between David and Uriah in any number of ways. One of the servants who had been made a part of this event could have repented for his complicity by telling Nathan what had happened. It might be that one of David’s jealous concubines told. Or Saul’s daughter Michal, whose nasty temper toward David had reduced her to the status of being his wife in name only, might have sent for the prophet. But as far as David is concerned, Nathan’s knowledge has come directly from God.
That leads us to the reason that King David was considered to be “God’s own man” despite this tawdry double sin of adultery and murder. When he is confronted, he does not throw Nathan into a pit or order him killed, as later kings would do to their prophets. He listens to Nathan pronounce a sentence on him that anyone would dread: trouble and strife his whole life, rising from within his own household, but also involving the entire kingdom and all of the innocent citizens in it. He does not lie or hide his sin, he does not try to blame his failings on the woman -- he confesses that he has sinned and begs for God’s forgiveness.
Part of what this story is doing is teaching us that the sins of the leaders of any nation bring down trouble not just on the offender but on the entire nation, despite the fact that the people had no control over their leaders nor any choice as to who might rise to power. Their governments were not elected. They had no recourse if their king or high priests sinned. Nevertheless, the Bible recognizes that the errors of those in charge of the nation or the temple devastate not only those officials or institutions, but also create a definite “trickle down” effect on the people -- even leading to the fall of the nation.
It might be argued that David begged for forgiveness knowing that if he were forgiven he would keep Bathsheba as his wife, and with the hope that none of what Nathan prophesied would come true. That may be; there are always those who aren’t sorry for what they have done but are sorry that they have been caught and might be punished. In King David’s situation, he had pronounced that the “rich man” should die for the crime of theft. How much more would God do to him for the crimes he had committed?
Nathan says at once that David will not die for his sins (even though David himself had decreed this should be the punishment). God’s mercy is instantaneous to those who confess their sins. But in later chapters of 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, we see that all of what Nathan threatened came true: David will face civil war led by first his son Absalom, and then Adonijah, and the kingdom will not hold.
We may think that all of this is part of God’s punishment of David, but it would be equally true to say it is all the result of what kind of person David has become. He has moved from keeping his eye on God to keeping his eye on the best chances. The corrupting influence of affluence and power will continue to take its toll on Israel and its king, as even Solomon will experience. As Nathan points out, David has been acting poorly in secret, but his punishment will be very public. Those who live public lives are thus held accountable.
We live in an era where public figures enter into despicable crimes also. They think they are above the law, or at least unafraid that anyone will find out. But when they offend others in power, their sins may be very publicly atoned for. We seldom impose a death penalty on our elected leaders, but public mockery and loss of influence can force bad leaders into a self-imposed withdrawal from the scene. We need to take seriously the understanding that when our leaders fail to do their jobs there will be consequences for the nation.
Ephesians 4:1-16
The writer to the Ephesians has a similar message in this passage: He begs us to “lead a life worthy of the calling to which [we] have been called, [behaving] with... humility and gentleness... patience... love... maintain[ing] the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Like David, we are being called to account for our actions. This applies not only to leaders but also to everyone who calls themselves a part of the Body of Christ.
While the author of Ephesians is unknown, s/he certainly is familiar with the teaching of Paul, and this list of characteristics of the Christian person reflects that. This gives us another opportunity to refer to the “fruits of the Spirit” from Galatians 5:22-23, and to remind ourselves that these fruits are not simply given to those who follow Christ. It takes work on our part, just as it takes work to harvest the fruits of the earth.
Some years back, I finally had the opportunity to fulfill a dream -- learning to throw pots. It turned out to be harder than it looks. First, one has to work the clay into the texture one wants it to have. Too much water added leads to slime that cannot be counted on to stay in shape. Too little makes it nearly impossible to shape the clay. One then literally throws the clay onto the wheel and makes sure it is centered. If it is even a little off-center, the pot will be eccentric -- leaning wildly, slumping in on itself, even twisting. One of the pots I was working on did just that, and suddenly the top flew off and hit another potter in the shoulder.
I was mortified. “What am I doing wrong?” I wailed. The teacher came over and said, “You need to be gentler. You should guide the clay, not force it. Gently.”
“Oh,” I said sheepishly. “Well, no onehas ever said that to me before!”
Everyone laughed, and the tension went out of the room. In this way God sent me a prophet to point out where I needed to grow. So it is with each of the fruits of the Spirit. We aren’t handed these qualities without effort on our part. Need to work on patience? We can be certain to suddenly encounter numerous opportunities to practice: long, slow lines at the store, or a slow-moving vehicle in front of us in a place where we cannot swing out and pass. If we have the understanding that we are being offered practice time on those qualities we need to develop, we will soon harvest the resulting character trait. We will be easier to get along with, less demanding, less arrogant, less insecure.
Part of the reason that the writer of Ephesians is urging the hearers to “bear with one another in love” is that the church had already been squabbling over several issues. The problem of inclusion of Gentile converts is evident in several places in the New Testament: Did they need to be circumcised? Must they follow all of the laws of the Torah? If a woman was converted, did she need to leave her unbelieving husband? Since there were far fewer men than women in early Christian groups, could a woman marry a non-believer, or did he have to convert before they married? Could eunuchs be baptized, or did the Levitical law that excluded them from the temple exclude them from the community of Christ as well? The argument between those who would include everyone who came to Christ in the fellowship of believers and those who held to the Levitical law kept the early church in an uproar.
Down through the centuries, disagreements have occurred that split believers again and again. We have so many denominations because different groups held opinions that were incompatible and the parties involved were intransigent. We may all read the same Bible (more or less), but our conclusions about what is meant in the scriptures have divided us.
One interesting point the author makes here points to another disagreement within the early church: the question of whether Jesus “descended into hell” as it is included in the Apostle’s Creed, or if it is “impossible for God to go to hell.” This reflects the conflict over the exact nature of Jesus: Was he the Son of God? God living in human flesh? A human being adopted by God? None of these questions could be solved by a study of the scriptures. This was all new. The New Testament we have today was not even written when these questions were first raised. It may seem incredible to today’s Christians that these were serious issues to the average follower of Jesus in the first century, but discussions on the nature of Christ continued into the fourth century. In the summer of 325 CE the Council of Nicaea worked on what the various churches had to say about the original teachings of the apostles. (For a fine discussion about that council and what they accomplished, go to http://www.christian-history.org/council-of-nicea-2.html.) The result was that the Roman Catholic church broke away from the Orthodox church (today known as the “Eastern” Orthodox churches), which continues to rely on apostolic tradition. The western churches have allowed rethinking of the ancient traditions in light of new understandings of the world both now and in apostolic times.
The Protestant Reformation caused another schism, which even resulted in books of the Bible being deleted in the Protestant churches. All of those books Protestants call “The Apocrypha” had been part of the Bible up to that time. The Reformers even discussed deleting the book of Revelation and the letter of James, the latter because it seemed to go against salvation by faith alone, and the former as being too confusing for the average person to read and understand. Other splits within the Protestant churches continue even to the present day, usually based on customs, but also based on how each group understands scripture.
As one example, the Methodist church was rent in the 19th century by the question of slavery. Those who wanted to retain their slaves found places in the scripture where slavery is sanctioned [see Philemon, Galatians 4:1-2, and Ephesians 6:5], while those who opposed slavery pointed to other passages [1 Corinthians 7:23 and Galatians 3:28]. Arguments like this went on for years, even decades, until the church split into the Methodist church-South and -North. Part of the problem was that several of the bishops of the church owned slaves and were unable to free them under the laws of the states in which they lived, but there were many who believed that slavery was a part of God’s plan.
Then there is the problem of scandal within the church. Any pastor who has served a church where there has been a treasurer who embezzled funds, a choir director who committed sexual assaults on music department members, or a pastor who defiled his or her vows can tell you that the splits that occur in a congregation leave scars for a full generation -- or longer -- and lead to further scandals and financial problems. The sexual misbehavior of pastors and priests has torn congregations and denominations apart, and the aftershocks will be felt for decades more as people win huge monetary suits against the churches.
We are all familiar with the highly emotional arguments over the acceptability of abortion, homosexuality, and women in ministry, and these arguments have already led to splits in several denominations. We can pit Bible verse against Bible verse without much effect on those who do not hold our point of view.
The author of Ephesians thinks he has a solution: If we could have the proper level of humility, it might be that we could all worship together. But so far, humility hasn’t much tread in the current debates. But in that we are clearly not very different from our ancestors in the faith.
John 6:24-35
This is one of those gospel stories that we have hear over and over, to the detriment of its meaning. We read this from the pulpit and the congregation doesn’t lean forward in anticipation; they’ve heard it before. We read it to ourselves and groan: How are we going to preach this with any kind of enthusiasm? The longer you’ve been preaching the harder it is, rather than easier. There is just too much temptation to recycle old sermons.
One way around this is to dig deeper. Not more deeply into the story itself -- the story is short and straightforward, but more deeply into the gospel writers’ purposes in telling this story. The story of the feeding of the 5,000 is one of the few stories that is in all four gospels and told in much the same way. So we may look first at one difference here in John’s version: whereas the synoptic gospels say that the disciples have the five loaves and two fish, John says “There is a boy here with five barley loaves and two fish.” Barley loaves were the kind of bread eaten by the very poor, barley being easily grown, while wheat was preferred by those who could afford it. So the miracle begins with a boy rather than the men who surround Jesus, and the offering is what the very poor would bring with them.
Second, the monetary value of the bread is used in the synoptic gospels, while John reports that this amounted to six months’ wages for the average worker.
Finally, we might note that in the synoptics the disciples come to Jesus at the end of the day, reminding him that people need to eat so he should send them away to buy food. Nothing goes into the gospels accidently. The synoptics portray Jesus as regularly going without food or rest as long as there are crowds needing attention. They are also intent on showing the disciples as a group being unaware of Jesus’ true stature and his miraculous abilities. But John has Jesus ask the functional question of one of the two studious disciples (Philip was the one who brought Nathanael, whom Jesus had seen studying the scriptures “under the fig tree” in John 1:47-49). Philip gives him the logical answer: “Six months’ wages would not be enough bread for each of them to get a little.” Jesus gets a faith answer from Peter’s brother Andrew: “There is a boy here with very little.”
Matthew and Mark tell of the death of John the Baptist at the hands of Herod as driving Jesus to want some time alone. The crowds follow him into the wilderness, which leads to this story. Luke doesn’t talk about the death of John, but says that Herod is puzzled over what he is hearing about Jesus: He is Elijah come back, he is John alive again. In his gospel, Luke says that Jesus invites the twelve to accompany him to a quiet place, which turns out to be Bethsaida, not the countryside.
John, on the other hand, prefaces the miracle story with a discussion between Jesus and “the Jews” (meaning the Jewish authorities) about what he said to a man who had been paralyzed for 38 years: “Stand up, take your mat, and walk.” Carrying a burden was not allowed on the sabbath, which was the day Jesus did this healing. The authorities apparently decided to focus on this aspect of the healing, rather than the impossibility of this man walking after being paralyzed for most of his life. If they focused on the latter, they would have had to have a conversation on how and why Jesus was able to do this thing. It’s always easier to nitpick rather than dig, and hard to recognize true power in an unexpected guise.
Jesus asserts that he has this power and the right to exercise it whenever and wherever, because he is doing just what his Father does. He claims the power to raise the dead, to give life to whomever he chooses, and not only that but to judge, because “The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son.” If they do not honor Jesus, they do not honor the Father either. This is not simply heresy in Judaism, it is sacrilege! But Jesus points to the works he has been doing and says that they “testify on my behalf.” He accuses them of disbelief even in the writings of Moses if they do not know how he is doing the miracles he is doing.
John then goes directly to the story of the feeding of the 5,000, followed by the story of Jesus walking on water, just as it is in all three of the synoptic gospels. John follows the simple outlines of the latter story, not including Peter’s request that Jesus command him to walk to him on the water. Matthew is the only one who includes Peter in that episode. He has a point to make in doing that, just as John has a point in what follows in his gospel.
John is still carrying on the thread of the argument that came before the feeding story. He portrays Jesus coming ashore at Capernaum, only to be greeted by another crowd. They have been seeking him, but Jesus says not for the right reasons. “[Y]ou are looking for me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures for eternal life....” They reply that their ancestors were given manna in the wilderness, and Jesus replies that that was not the work of a man (Moses) but the gift of God. He declares that he is the bread of God that “comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Thus, the feeding of the 5,000 is a story John uses to illustrate Jesus’ claim to be the bread of life.
When we look at all of the gospels this way, we see that John’s point is quite different from the point the other evangelists are making. They are showing us Jesus’ unique powers, but they do not go as far as John does. The two miracle stories are enough for them. For John, who is writing perhaps a century after the resurrection, there is an argument against those Jews who still resist Jesus’ claim that God is his Father, and that God has given Jesus powers not only to heal and feed the multitude, but to give them life -- and not just life in this world, but in the world to come.
The modern world would deny even that Jesus had remarkable powers. One professor at the seminary I attended said that he thought it probable that no one would set out to listen to Jesus without packing a lunch before he went. After all, there weren’t supermarkets in those days. So Jesus knew that if he started passing food into the crowd the people would know it was time to eat, and those who had more than they needed would drop their excess into the baskets being passed -- so all would have plenty to eat.
But third-world countries do have food vendors. Some of them have established places of business, even if there are not tables and chairs made available. Others have carts or wander the marketplace with their wares on their backs, crying out what they have to offer. So it is not that people have to pack food; they can and do buy from these vendors.
It is possible, of course, that Jesus is demonstrating his understanding of human nature: I can’t eat in front of other people if they don’t have food, nor while I’m supposed to be listening to this person preach. But if given permission by announcing that it’s time to eat and breaking out something to pass, then I can take out my lunch, meager though it may be, and eat. If the person next to me has nothing with him, then I can share a little of my own food.
To the gospel writers, that’s not the point. They are here to tell us that Jesus was unique, powerful, compassionate, and able to meet people’s needs. They are here to open our hearts not just so we will take care of one another, but so we will learn to turn to Jesus, knowing that we will be cared for. It’s very hard to be caring and sharing if there is nothing coming back to us. Caregivers need to be cared for as well.
We as the church call upon our members often to care for others, to share their earthly goods, to give to the upkeep of the church, to give groceries to our food bank, to give to missions and/or missionaries, to work for social justice. We sometimes run the risk of exhausting our people! Everyone who is happy, healthy, and comfortable can certainly afford to share. But the church is often the last refuge for people who are sad, angry, alone, sick, and worried about whether they will be able to pay the rent or mortgage each month. We are definitely a refuge for the elderly, whose children often live far away and are generally unavailable, either because they don’t see their parents’ daily needs or because the elderly are ashamed to ask them for help. When we turn repeatedly to our congregation with requests, and never with comfort, personal attention, or the promise of care when they are in need, we can wind up with congregations of burnt-out people. Just as we pastors need to know that we are appreciated and loved by our congregants, they need to know that we are available and care about them.
For the same reason, we need to tend to our own relationship with Jesus. If we expect to be able to carry the burdens of our congregations without the faith that God loves us and will care for us in times of trouble or want, what do we have to offer our members? If we only think of Jesus as being able to bring out the best in people, we miss the greatest gift God has for us: The certainty that God loves us and that there is a person we can go to when the world has become too much, too demanding, too troubling. We need to remember that Christ not only leads us out into the world, but he also is able to protect us from the world, to give us the space and peace that we need, and that he intends to give us rest, not just work, day after day. When we take advantage of that promise, then we will have our joy restored. And we will be able to help others to be in that same space.
Mother Teresa of Calcutta summed this up quite nicely when she said, “God does not call us to succeed, but to be faithful.” When we recognize this, we can relax and truly be God’s people.
