Lent 1, Cycle B

These four texts are linked by the themes of covenant and of baptism, as well as of trust and of obedience. All are appropriate for the Lenten season. They provide many possibilities for Lenten keynote messages.

Psalm 25:1-10

The psalmist makes no attempt to present before the Lord a facade of sinlessness. Instead, the psalmist stakes everything on trust in the Lord. The psalmist reminds the Lord that the Lord is widely known and characterized by mercy and steadfast love. Therefore, the psalmist asks the Lord to concentrate on the goodness of the Lord and to teach that goodness and that way of life to those who, like the psalmist, are humble sinners who are eager to live according to the terms of the covenant that the Lord God has established with God’s people. Although this psalm may be nearly three thousand years old, it is not outdated. It provides an excellent model for us, and for the people among whom we serve, for Lent and for all seasons.

Genesis 9:8-17

Among the various covenants described within our biblical accounts, this covenant of God with Noah, with the descendants of Noah, and with every living creature is the most inclusive and perhaps the most gracious on the part of God, the mighty power in the covenant. In this covenant God makes no demands; God makes only promises. It is affirmed in the text that every rainbow that every living creature will ever see will be a reminder to God and to every living creature of God’s everlasting mercy and grace.

1 Peter 3:18-22

The Lenten theme of redemption in Christ is extended in this text to those who, at the time of Noah, did not obey God. Through the waters of the great flood in the Noah story God destroyed all who were disobedient; in the waters of baptism now God saves those who are obedient. The covenant of baptism links the believer to Jesus the Christ, who is raised from the dead and ruling in the heavenly regions. By means of the baptismal covenant with Christ, the believer is endowed with the righteousness of Christ and linked to God the Father. 1 Peter 3:18-22 is a principal reason that 1 Peter, along with Paul’s letter to the Romans and the Gospel According to John, were the favorite New Testament documents for Martin Luther.

Mark 1:9-15

If Jesus was obedient to God in coming to John the Baptizer to participate in a baptism for the forgiveness of sins, how much more should not those who wish to follow Jesus as the Christ come to the Church, the Body of Christ, for baptism in Christ’s name? In the Gospel According to Mark the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptizer marks the beginning of a very special covenant relationship of God with Jesus, a covenant between Father and Son, a covenant in which Jesus is declared to be very pleasing to God. In this text Jesus is depicted as obedient to God even when Jesus is tempted by “Satan” in the wilderness. In this text Jesus proclaims the kingdom of God’s grace and rejects the kingdom of Roman power. He overcomes the temptation of “Satan,” the temptation to try to help Jesus’ fellow oppressed Jewish people by cooperating fully with the alluring, satanic power of the Roman state. Jesus is depicted in this text as not believing that by his cooperating fully with the oppressive Romans the Roman oppression will be reduced. With his life and with his words Jesus will speak out against the satanic power of the Roman state, the state that will near the end of the Gospel According to Mark and at the end for us of the season of Lent this year crucify Jesus. Nevertheless, the Roman state will not, even with all of its power and glory, be able to prevent God from raising Jesus from the dead on the third day, Easter morning for us. That is the Easter message that we will anticipate in a few short weeks when the season of Lent has run its course.

THEME OF THE DAY
Remembering the spiritual roots of grace. All the texts in different ways proclaim Justification by Grace, which is constantly and consistently with us in surprising ways, like when enduring hard times.

Psalm 22:23-31
The Psalm is a lament prayer for deliverance from mortal illness attributed to David. We note again it is unlikely that David is the author of the psalms attributed to him (Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, p. 512). The assigned reading focuses on the part of the Psalm in which the psalmist vows on recovery to offer a formal thanksgiving in the temple and also the song itself he will sing.
Reference to all who “fear” [yare] the Lord is not to imply that God creates terror, but that he evokes worship and obedience and calls for a proper relation with him. God is praised for caring for the afflicted and the poor (vv. 24, 26). There is a prophecy that all ethnic groups will worship him and that future generations will serve him (v. 27). The kingdom [melukah] is said to belong to Yahweh. And posterity [zera, a seed] will serve him, proclaiming his righteousness [tsedeq] to people not yet born (vv. 28-31). We should be reminded at this point that the concept of “righteousness” even in an Old Testament context is not to imply that the believer lives in faultless conformity to some moral norm. It has to do with living in right relationship with God (Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 370-371). Thus the term in this case could refer to a vision of a just society or merely to what happens to faithful people through God’s justifying grace.

Application: The text provides an excellent occasion to reflect on grace and the righteousness of God’s (Justification by Grace) universal outreach (that it is for all). The constancy of this love (that it is for the unborn as well as for us) might be emphasized. (This theme could be related to the theme of the First Lesson.) Another perspective could be to focus on God’s concern for the poor and afflicted (Social Ethics).

Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16
We have previously noted that like all five books of the Pentateuch, this Book of Origins is probably the product of several distinct literary traditions. This one is just comprised of three strands: 1) J, a ninth /tenth-century BC source, so named for its use of the Jahweh or Yahweh (translated “Lord”); 2) E, an eighth-century BC source named for its use of the divine name Elohim; and 3) P or Priestly source dated from the sixth century BC. This lesson offers an account of the everlasting covenant with Abraham and his offspring as narrated by P. (See chapter 15 for the earlier account of this covenant by J and E.)
God is identified in the lesson as El Shaddai (v. 1), the one of the mountains. This was the divine name current in the pre-Mosaic period (Exodus 6:2-3). The covenant [berith] with Abram (the establishment of a bond with God), it is said, will make him an ancestor of many nations, and the covenant will continue through the generations forever (vv. 2, 6-7). God selects Abram for no particular reason. He is to be blameless, but all he does is to do homage before God (vv. 1, 3). Abraham’s new name means “ancestor” (v. 5). His original name meant “Ab [the divine name] is lofty.” His wife, it is promised, will have a son, giving rise to great nations and peoples (v. 16). Her name is changed from Sarai to Sarah (meaning “princess”) (v. 15).

Application: This lesson provides an excellent opportunity to portray Justification by Grace through Faith in a fresh way, as God’s nurturing, and to help the flock see this word in the Old Testament appreciating how faith is enhanced by seeing God’s love active throughout time.

Romans 4:13-25
This letter of introduction was written by Paul between 54 AD and 58 AD to a church which to date he had never visited. The lesson is Paul’s discourse on the true descendants of Abraham. He begins by noting that the promise made to Abraham and his descendants is not made through the law but through the righteousness of faith (v. 13). Reference to Abraham inheriting the world is a Jewish interpretation of Genesis 12:6 (see Sirach 44:19-21). The law is said to bring wrath [orge, connoting not anger but the rightful response to what humans have done]. As such it renders faith and the promise [epaggelia] null and void (vv. 15-14). The promise to Abraham and his people must depend on faith in order that grace is guaranteed (v. 16). Abraham is deemed a model here, hoping against hope. This is in line with the God who gives life to the dead and calls into existent things that do not exist (vv. 17-18). Reference is made to Genesis 17:5 and to Abraham’s status as the father of many nations. Abraham’s faith was counted/reckoned [logizomai] as righteousness [dikaiosune], as will be the case for those who believe that God raised Jesus (vv. 22-25; cf. Genesis 15:6). Consistent with the points noted above in the Psalm regarding the righteousness of God, in Hebraic thinking the concept of righteousness has to do with God’s loyalty to his covenant in saving us and even at times later in the Old Testament era the righteousness of God construed as something bestowed on the faithful (Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 373, 376ff), much like Paul speaks of it here.

Application: This lesson is also prods us to sermons witnessing to Justification by Grace through Faith. The reference to Abraham allows us to use insights noted in the First Lesson. Or God’s propensity to give life out of death, to create out of nothing, affords opportunity to proclaim God’s grace in face of depression and in the midst of other bad times.

Mark 8:31-38
Again we consider a text in the first of the Synoptic Gospels to be written, a book that was perhaps the source of other gospels, likely 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, perhaps 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 (especially Gentiles), as it 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 text recounts events following Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah [christos, which was the Greek term for Old Testament references to “Anointed One”] (v. 29). The same stories appear in the other Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 16:21-26; Luke 9:22-26). Jesus teaches that the Son of Man [huios tou anthropou] must suffer and be rejected by the elders [Sanhedrin], chief priest, and scribes (v. 31). The title functions at this point to refer to Jesus’ Passion. As used by Mark’s version of Jesus it is a way of affirming that Jesus is just a typical human being. But the title could also connote the prophesied figure of Daniel 7:13-14 whom many Jews of the era regarded as the coming Messiah.
Peter rebukes Jesus for this teaching (v. 32, an account not appearing in Luke’s version) and was in turn sternly rebuked for setting his mind on human beings (v. 33). Calling Peter “Satan” is to refer to him as an adversary of God. Jesus then continues with a discourse on discipleship, calling followers to deny [aparneomai] themselves, take up their cross [stauros], and follow him (v.34). We save [sozo, or keep sound] our lives, it seems, by losing [apollumi] them (v. 35). Those ashamed of Jesus and his words in this adulterous [moichalis], sinful generation will find the Son of Man (understood here as referring to Jesus’ role in judgment) ashamed [epaischunomai] of them when he comes in the glory [doxa] of the Father (v. 38). This warning does not appear in Matthew’s version.

Application: The text provides opportunities to condemn our sinful nature to have God do things our way and help people understand what bearing the cross involves Sanctification along with the assurance that God gives in our journey (Justification by Grace).

This text is a story about the covenant between the Lord God and Abram and his descendants. The story provides an etiology of the origin of the custom of the circumcision of all Israelite males as a sign of this covenant. The story also describes the name changes from Abram to Abraham and from Sarai to Sarah as commanded by the Lord. Since the Lord is proclaimed in this text as God Almighty, Abraham and his descendants are commanded to walk (live) under constant scrutiny of the Lord God and be blameless. The childless marriage of Abraham and Sarah will be blessed by God by the birth of a son, Isaac, even though Abraham, who is one hundred years old and Sarah ninety, laughs (verse 17) at the possibility of a child for himself and for Sarah. As an important factor in the Christian story of salvation (Heilsgeschichte), this account is appropriate for use in Christian worship services during the Lenten season.

Psalm 22:23-31

After crying out to God in despair while suffering from a life-threatening illness and describing his physical distress, the psalmist promises to offer a heartfelt testimony of gratitude to God in the presence of other Israelites. The psalmist proclaims that in the future all people in every nation will bow down in humble adoration of the Lord God, who has total power and authority over them.

Romans 4:13-25

The Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16 text chosen for this day puts no emphasis on the faith of Abraham. In fact, it states that when Abraham heard the Lord say that Sarah and he would be blessed with a son in their advanced age, Abraham laughed in disbelief. Instead of this text, the Apostle Paul used Genesis 15:6, in which it is written that Abraham believed the Lord, to support Paul’s argument in Romans 4:13-25 that the promise to Abraham and to Abraham’s descendants had been established by their faith and that the Lord would keep the promise the Lord made.

Alert members of our worshiping Christian congregations will wonder why those who compiled our lectionary did not use Genesis 15:1-6 rather than Genesis 17:1-7, 15-16 in conjunction with this text in Romans 4:13-25. Paul here in Romans 4:18 argued that Abraham believed with a hope that went far beyond all reason to hope and did not weaken in his faith even when he considered his own body and the prolonged infertility of Abraham and Sarah. This is in sharp contrast to the Genesis 17:17 note that Abraham laughed at the idea that God would bless Sarah and Abraham with a son when they were so old.

Mark 8:31-38

Mark 8:31 includes the first of three predictions by Jesus (to be followed in Mark 9:30-32 and 10:33-34) of his rejection, of his being seized in the Garden of Gethsemane, being crucified by the Romans, and after three days being raised to life by God. As used here on the Second Sunday in Lent, it serves as a projection toward Good Friday and Easter in our Church Year calendar. It also raises questions among thoughtful people today how Peter and the other disciples of Jesus could have responded so vehemently in protest to Jesus’ prediction of his death and ignored completely Jesus’ prediction of his resurrection that will occur three days after his death.

This account in Mark 8:31-38 provides for us much evidence of the inspired creativity of the Markan writer and of the earlier tradition. It is a particularly fascinating text to study, because three life situation levels can be discerned within the history of the tradition of this text up to the level of the Markan account.

The first life situation level is the level of the activities of the Jesus of history with some of his closest followers. We can see two rather loosely connected sayings of Jesus (Mark 8:36-37 and 8:38) at this Jesus of history level, as well as a hint in 8:31 that the Jesus of history had talked with his followers about the likelihood that he would be killed by the Roman occupation authorities as a Jewish messianic figure. There is further evidence in 8:32-33 that, when the Jesus of history talked about the likelihood that he would be killed by the Roman authorities as a Jewish messianic figure, Peter (and perhaps others among Jesus’ followers who were present) objected strenuously to his talk about an imminent violent death. In spite of this, Jesus had refused to be deterred. He had resolutely continued his bold and courageous advocacy of the cause of God even when he was confronted by the fears of his disciples and their understandable attempts to dissuade him. During this first life situation, there would have been no prediction of and no expectation of the resurrection of Jesus three days after his death.

Behind this Mark 8:31-38 text, therefore, there may have been at least three separate situations within the activities of the Jesus of history. Let us try to reconstruct them as well as we can.

On one or more occasions, the Jesus of history probably said something about the likelihood that he would be killed by the Romans. As a highly intelligent and perceptive human being, he would have foreseen the likelihood that the military and political leader of the Roman occupation troops would order his arrest and crucifixion because Jesus was a Jewish messianic figure, passionately concerned about his fellow oppressed Jews and not afraid of the Roman authorities. Because he was helping his fellow oppressed Jews actively and openly, and because significant numbers of men and women from among his own people were often gathered around him, Jesus was perceived correctly by the Roman authorities to be a Jewish messianic figure and, therefore, a potential threat to the security of the Roman forces.

Although it is not likely that the Jesus of history ever encouraged his followers to use military actions and resistance against the Roman occupation authorities, the Romans could not be sure about that. Even though he himself would not encourage military resistance, which was not his purpose and which would have been foolhardy even if it had been, some of his excitable young followers might have attempted such action. Both the Roman occupation forces and the “Herodians” (Jewish religious and political leaders who cooperated fully with the Romans and opposed any attempts by Jewish Zealot types to foment a revolt or revolution that would almost certainly be crushed by the Romans with heavy loss of Jewish life, property, and position) were nervous, therefore, about the Jesus of history and about the excitable young men who were often gathered around him.

Eventually, of course, the Roman occupation leader, Pontius Pilate, did order the arrest, torture, and crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem. Pilate correctly considered Jesus to be a Jewish messianic figure, one among many others at that time. We note the inscription on the cross, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” This inscription would demonstrate plainly and publicly to the Jewish populace what the Roman occupation authorities did to Jewish messianic figures. The “King of the Jews” inscription had probably been used many times (whenever the Romans crucified a Jewish leader of prominence) both before and after it was used as a designation of the reason that the Romans were crucifying Jesus. This was done by the Romans in order to keep the Jewish population subdued and to keep the number of Roman troops needed to control the Jewish population as small as possible.

On many occasions the Jesus of history probably talked about integrity and courage (and demonstrated great integrity and courage) in a way that was remembered, repeated, and recorded in the words of Mark 8:36-37, “What gain will there be for a person — even if the person should gain control of the whole world — if the integrity of that person is lost? For what could a person possibly give in exchange for that person’s integrity?”

Also, it is likely that the Jesus of history talked about the Son of man and about other terms and ideas commonly spoken about within Jewish apocalyptic circles at that time. The words of Mark 8:38, “Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words within this adulterous and sinful generation — the Son of man will be ashamed of that person when the Son of man comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels,” probably are a reflection (with some additional development) over what the Jesus of history had said about these things. The Son of man is spoken about in the third person grammatically here, and “in the glory of his Father” may also be a part of this additional development of the text.

The second life situation level is the level of the reminiscences of followers of Jesus after he had been crucified. The words of 8:34b, “If anyone wishes to follow after me, let that person deny that person’s self and let that person take up that person’s own cross and follow me,” were probably developed during this period of reminiscence when the cross symbol was becoming meaningful to followers of Jesus. At this level the words of the Jesus of history about this adulterous and sinful generation” would be changing from internal criticism of Jews by a Jew (the Jesus of history) to external criticism of Jews by those who were not Jews (the Christ of faith and the early Christians). At this level of reminiscences of followers of Jesus after he had been crucified, the predictions of the Jesus of history that he would probably be killed by the Roman military forces would often be recalled — privately but not publicly and not in written form.

During this level of reminiscences, followers of Jesus would gradually have added details to the passion predictions ex eventu as they came to believe that Jesus was now raised from the dead and with God. Here (or at the Markan level) the important step of adding the resurrection prediction was probably taken in what was to become Mark 8:31. This step was taken because it was thought that Jesus as God’s Son must have known that God would raise him from the dead, since along with his divine power he would also have omniscience. During this period of time the statement in Mark 8:36 that whoever loses life or integrity for Jesus’ sake would have been developed as incentive and motivation for followers of Jesus. Also at this level (and at the Markan level during the Jewish revolt of 66-72 C.E.) followers of Jesus who were transmitting the tradition would have been careful not to say anything publicly or in written form about the Romans as those who would kill Jesus, so that their own lives would not be further endangered. Jewish authorities could be blamed, since they did not have political and military power over followers of Jesus, especially after 67 C.E.

After Pilate had been discredited and removed from his office by the Romans, it became safe for followers of Jesus to speak publicly and to write about Pilate’s involvement on the crucifixion of Jesus. If Pilate had been retained in office and advanced in position by the Romans, it is probable that followers of Jesus would not have been able to speak publicly or to write about Pilate’s involvement in condemning Jesus to death. As it was, followers of Jesus were careful to present Pilate and the Romans only as rather passive participants rather than as the active agents that they were in ordering the arrest of Jesus, torturing him during the night, and crucifying him the next morning. It was perfectly safe, however, to blame the Jews by making them the active, aggressive instigators of the death sentence of Jesus. A few Jews, of course, the Herodians, may have been willing participants, but not the overwhelming majority of the Jews. We must be aware of this as Christian leaders today, and we must share our awareness of this with the people in our congregations.

The third life situation level, the level of the Markan composition of the document “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” that became canonical, brought together by the use of redactional connectors a variety of oral and written traditions into what we now have as Mark 8:31-38. At this level, additional detail was added, especially elements such as the words “and for the sake of the gospel” in 8:35.

Beyond this third level the Matthean redactors added details such as “to go away to Jerusalem” in Matthew 16:21 (Mark 8:31) and “May God mercifully spare you this! This must never happen to you!” in Matthew 16:22 (Mark 8:32). The Lukan writer-redactor went a different way by eliminating the rebuke by Peter (Luke 9:21-22).

There is an active debate currently about whether our proclamation should be limited to the canonical level of the tradition or whether we should sometimes base our proclamation or use in our proclamation other levels that are now accessible to us through use of exegetical methodologies. Personally, I think that we should be able to use all levels in our proclamation. Actually, whenever we place our emphasis on a particular portion of a text, we are choosing a particular level in the development of a text. If we use both Matthew and Mark, or Luke and Mark, or Deuteronomy and Exodus, or 1-2 Chronicles and 1-2 Kings, etc., we are actually using materials from more than one level of development of the traditions within the biblical account. Was not the tradition inspired at every level of its development? Particularly, I suggest that we should use the earliest discernible level of the development of texts from the Four Gospels. To limit our use to the canonical level would be reductionistic and would separate us unnecessarily from the Jesus of history. Of course, canon criticism and the canonical level are vitally important. So is text criticism that reveals changes in the text after the canon was established.

Mark 9:2-9

This Transfiguration story, along with its parallels in Matthew and in Luke, is considered by the great majority of Christians to be a record of an event that occurred just as it is recorded here. It is likely, however, that much more is involved in these texts than simply a record of an event. If these are simply records of an important, spectacular event that occurred during the public ministry of Jesus, we may wonder why there is no mention of such an astonishing occurrence within the Fourth Gospel. According to popular understanding, the Fourth Gospel was written by John, and John is said to have been present with Jesus on the mountain at the time of this event. How could the writer of the Fourth Gospel have forgotten this profound experience of seeing and hearing men who had lived and died hundreds of years earlier and who remained prominent in Jewish thought?

Although the Fourth Gospel has no mention of this event, Mark, Matthew, and Luke, who are nowhere said to have been present on the mountain, all include this story.

With our understanding of biblical symbolism, we can see that in these Synoptic Gospel Transfiguration stories Moses and Elijah function as symbols for the Torah and for the Prophetic Traditions respectively. The Torah and the Prophets together constituted the sacred Scriptures for most Jews and for the earliest Christians during the time in which the Synoptic Gospels were written. Symbolically, these Transfiguration stories may have been intended to proclaim that Jesus is in the “same league” with Moses and Elijah. By means of these stories Jesus and the words of Jesus are validated as on the same level of authority as the sacred Scriptures as the Scriptures were known at that time. (The so-called Writings had not yet been canonized.) From the standpoint of those who first heard or read the Transfiguration account in Mark, Jesus’ words and Jesus as a person were validated within these accounts by God God’s self by means of the very impressive voice from the cloud saying, “This is my Beloved Son! Listen to him!” In the story after the cloud moved away, the three awe-stricken disciples are said to have seen no one there except Jesus. Moses and Elijah were gone.

Symbolically, therefore, both the Torah and the Prophetic traditions were also no longer to be seen nor heard. At this point the message intended almost certainly was to indicate vividly that Jesus and the words of Jesus have replaced the Torah and the Prophets as sacred authorities for followers of Jesus. The Transfiguration account in Mark 9:2-9, therefore, served to validate the entire “Gospel of Jesus Christ (Mark) much as the “Burning Bush” account in Exodus served as a validation of the entire book of Exodus or even of the entire Torah. When the Matthean and Lukan redactors included the Markan Transfiguration account in their expanded Gospels, the Transfiguration accounts served the same purpose in those documents as validation stories for those documents.

The writers of the Fourth Gospel chose to validate their account also, but not by using the Markan Transfiguration account. Instead, they validated the Fourth Gospel by their use of the great “I Am” statements that they have the Johannine Jesus express in key places in their document.

Thus we have the Four Gospels validated as “words of Jesus” and actually as “Word of God” that God God’s self directly and indirectly is said to have commanded us to hear as we transition from the Epiphany season to Ash Wednesday and to the Lenten season.

THEME OF THE DAY
Look! God doesn’t do things our way. The texts push us to an awareness that the commandments of God and reason alone (our common sense) cannot bring us to a right relationship with God, and that his ways of grace and love are not the ways of the world (Theological Method, Providence, Sin, Justification by Grace, and even Social Ethics).

Psalm 19
The Psalm is a hymn to God as Creator of nature and giver of the law, traditionally attributed to David. Again we are reminded that it is unlikely that David is the author of the psalms attributed to him (Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, p. 512). Many scholars argue that references to David in the psalms like this one may have been a way of using him to represent the inner life of all his subjects and so of all the faithful (Brevard Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, p. 521). In that sense this song is about how all the faithful and all creation are to praise God and seek to avoid sin. The Psalm begins with a testimony to the fact that the sky and the succession of days praise God (vv. 1-6). The theme affords an opportunity to express ecological sensitivity. The verses that follow verse 6 may be a later addition, praising the revelation of God’s will in the Mosaic Law [torah]. The law is said to be perfect [tamin, whole or complete], reviving the soul [nephesh], and making wise the simple. It is clear, rejoices the heart, and is more to be desired than gold (especially  vv. 7-10). The law warns and reminds those who keep it (v. 11). This is compatible with a Christian understanding of God’s law. The psalmist prays to avoid sin, so that God not let the insolent have dominion over him (vv. 12-13). He concludes with the reminder that only with God’s grace can we keep the law, as he states that only by God’s action will we be innocent/clean/free [naqah]. The Psalm concludes with the famous prayer that our words and meditation may be acceptable/pleasing to God (v. 14).

Application: At least two sermon alternatives emerge from this Psalm. The text invites sermons on the ecological crisis and how the creation proclaims and praises God (Social Ethics or the Cosmological Argument for God’s existence). But sermons on the law, how it is the complete revelation of what God instructs us to do, the complete guide to life (Leo Trepp, Judaism: Development and Life, p. 2), would be appropriate. However inasmuch as we come to realize that the law only warns us (due to our sin), the text drives us to an awareness, contrary to common sense, that it is only possible to live in such guidance because of grace (God’s action — Justification by Grace and Sanctification).

Exodus 20:1-17
We have previously noted that the book is so named for the Greek term referring to the liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage. Its Hebrew name (meaning “These are the names”) refers to the first words of the text’s prologue. Like all five books of the Pentateuch, this book is probably the product of several distinct literary traditions. This one is just comprised of three strands: 1) J, a ninth/tenth-century BC source, so named for its use of the Jahweh or Yahweh (translated “Lord”); 2) E, an eighth-century BC source named for its use of the divine name Elohim; and 3) P or Priestly source, dated from the sixth century BC. The lesson tells the story of the giving of the Ten Commandments (likely the product of a combination of J and E, perhaps by P). The prologue identifying God and what he has done (v. 2) summarizes the previous chapters. In this sense the law and historical narrative are related. We also find this happening in verse 11b, as the sabbath observance finds justification in the Lord resting from creation on the seventh day.
Each commandment is reviewed. The name Yahweh in verse 2 may be significant. It means “I am that I am,” but could also be translated “he lets be” (i.e., creates). The reference to God being jealous [qanna] may be translated “zealous.” This is a gracious [chanan] merciful God, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love [chesed] (34:6-7; 20:6).

Application: Like the Psalm this lesson affords opportunity to understand the Ten Commandments as a guide to lie (as Torah], but which cannot be kept apart from the gracious, loving God. This insight that we are not as good as we think or seem to be, and only by grace can we do good, seems to go against common sense (Sin and Justification by Grace). The dialectical character of faith as challenge to our ordinary perceptions of reality (Theological Method) is another logical theme to develop from the text. But we could also in turn focus on one or more of the commandments which speak to the pressing social issue of the day we would address (poverty, racism, adultery, etc.) (Social Ethics).

1 Corinthians 1:18-25
The lesson is drawn from one of Paul’s authentic letters, written from Ephesus prior to his epistle to the Romans, to a church in Greece he had established (Acts 18:1-11). Relations between him and the church had become strained. The letter aims to address doctrinal and ethical problems disturbing the Corinthian church. In the lesson, having sought to address the divisions in the Corinthian church (vv. 10-17), Paul continues his appeal for unity with a discourse on the cross [stauros] of Christ. He notes that the cross is foolishness [moria] for those perishing but is the power [dunamis] of God for those saved [soz ] (v. 18). Citing Isaiah 29:14 in the Greek translation, reference is made to how the cross destroys the wisdom of the wise (v. 19). God makes foolish the wisdom [sophia] of the world (v. 20).
Paul adds that the world’s wisdom could not know the wisdom of God. Thus God decided to save believers through the foolishness of Paul’s proclamation (v. 21). Jews demand signs [semeion] and Greeks [Hellen] wisdom, but Paul proclaims Christ crucified, which is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (vv. 22-24). God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness [asthenes] stronger than human strength (v. 25).

Application: The text offers an occasion to proclaim the hiddenness of Christian faith (how it confounds reason — Theological Method and Providence) and the lifestyle of rebellion against evil in all its forms (Sanctification) that faith’s hiddenness entails.

John 2:13-22
We have previously noted that this book is the last of the four gospels to be written, probably not composed until the last two decades of the first century. It is very different in style in comparison to the other three (so-called Synoptic) gospels. In fact it is probably based on these earlier gospels. The book has been identified with John the Son of Zebedee, the disciple whom Jesus loved, and this claim was made as long ago as late in the first century by the famed theologian of the early church Irenaeus (Ante-
(Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 414). It is likely that it was written by a disciple of John. Hints of that possibility are offered by the first post-biblical church historian Eusebius of Caesarea who claimed that the book was written on the basis of the external facts made plain in the gospel and so John is a “spiritual gospel” (presumably one not based on eyewitness accounts of the author) (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1, p. 261). Its main agenda was probably to encourage Jewish Christians in conflict with the synagogue to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (20:31).

Recently some scholars have suggested an alternative account of the origins of John’s gospel. Appealing to the writings of a late first and early second-century Bishop Papias, who may have implied that John’s gospel was the result of eyewitness origins, such scholars have argued that the book is in fact an authentic historical testimony to Jesus (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, especially pp. 423ff; cf. Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. 154-155).
This lesson is the story of the cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem. Unlike the parallel Synoptic Gospel accounts of the event (Matthew 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Luke 19:45-48), John locates this story early in Jesus’ ministry. According to the Johannine author, Jesus has traveled from the wedding at Cana to Capernaum and then to Jerusalem, presumably to spend Passover in the city (vv. 12-13). Seeing people selling animals and money changers, he drives them out of the temple with a whip of cords, then pouring out their coins and overturning their tables (vv. 14-15). He charges them with making his Father’s house a marketplace [house of merchandise] (v. 16). In so doing he seems to identify himself as God’s Son. The disciples recall Psalm 69:9 that “zeal for your house [oikos] will consume/devour [katapsage] me” (v. 17). They recall this after Jesus’ resurrection (v. 22). The Jews ask for a sign [semeion] and Jesus responds that in three days the temple will be destroyed and raised up (vv. 18-20). He was referring to his body’s death and resurrection (v. 21).

Application: The text provides opportunities to condemn commercialism (the buying and selling of goods and services in order to support the church) — the doctrines of Sanctification and Church. Besides urging more generous stewardship, the fact that Jesus and the church do not operate by the usual fund-raising techniques opens the way for sermons on the hidden, surprising ways of the God (Providence and Theological Method). Another possibility might be to point out how the resurrection challenges and even destroys the ways of the world and ordinary religiosity (the temple).

Within Series B of this lectionary, the Gospel account for next Sunday, the Third Sunday in Lent, John 2:13-22, is, in a sense, a sequel to last Sunday’s Mark 8:31-38 passion-resurrection prediction. This John 2:13-22 passion-resurrection prediction of the Johannine Jesus is couched in typical Johannine terms that are much more obscure and symbolic than are those within the Synoptic traditions. Not only is the cleansing of the temple placed near the beginning of Jesus’ ministry rather than at the end where it is in the Synoptics, but also the Johannine writers placed this passion-resurrection prediction near the beginning of their account of Jesus’ public ministry rather than well into the account as was done in Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

Further comparison of the cleansing of the temple accounts indicates that the Johannine tradition made the temple cleansing action of Jesus much more violent than in the Synoptics by having the Johannine Jesus form a whip of thorn bushes and using it to drive from the temple court those who had been selling animals there for use in the temple sacrifices and changing Roman coins into Jewish “tokens” that would be acceptable as temple offerings. Such comparison of texts also reveals that the Johannine tradition used its temple cleansing account as the basis for its passion-resurrection prediction in this John 2:13-22 text. (Note how the play on words in John 2:13-22 is dependent upon the cleansing of the temple account in John 2:13-17.) As with so many other texts, we are impressed by the creativity of the inspired writers of these traditions. We can say that this John 2:13-22 text is basically a product of the inspired Johannine community.

Among the indications that this John 23-22 text is a product of the inspired Johannine community are the following. First, there are the words of the Johannine Jesus in 2:19, “Destroy this temple, and (or If you destroy this temple,) within three days I will raise it up,” and second, there is the use of the words “the Jews” in 2:13, 18, and 20. Let us look more closely at these two factors.

The words of John 2:19 are characteristic of a Divine Sovereign who cannot be limited or removed by death. Even though his temple-body might be destroyed by evil people, he has the power of self-resurrection at whatever time he designates. A human being, on the other hand, cannot accomplish self-resurrection. (Even Egyptian pharaohs who had mammoth pyramids constructed in which their bodies were to be placed could not accomplish self-resurrection.) We see that the words of the Johannine Jesus, here and elsewhere within the Fourth Gospel, are expressions of what the people of the Johannine community believed about Jesus as they perceived him. Their perception bordered on what was later to be called Docetism (that Jesus only seemed to have been human), although they guarded against that somewhat with their “and the Word became flesh in the Johannine Prologue.

The distance between the Jesus of history and this account as we have it here is also portrayed in the use in this text of the expression “the Jews.” By the time and in the place of the full development of this text, the members of the Johannine community were far removed theologically from Jews who remained Jews. They had in effect “forgotten,” or perhaps we should say “chosen to forget” that the Jesus of history had lived and died as a Jew. Because of the way in which they used the expression “the Jews” in this and in many other Johannine texts, most Christians have also “forgotten” or “chosen to forget,” or at least have not realized that Jesus himself was a Jew. As a result, destructive and hateful anti-Semitism became accepted and inherent within the Christian Church and in many Christian people.

Before we take up the practical question of what we shall proclaim next Sunday using this text as our primary biblical basis, let us consider for a moment a few thoughts about the resurrection predictions in John 2:13-22 to supplement our reflections over the passion-resurrection predictions in Mark 8:31-38 last week. We can see and understand how resurrection predictions would be attributed to Jesus after followers of Jesus began to believe that Jesus who had been crucified by the Romans was alive again, raised from the dead by God or even self-resurrected, was in the Spirit of God truly present with them, and uniquely one with God the Father. Resurrection predictions such as these are a natural development ex eventu. They are classic examples of vaticinia ex eventu (predictions made after the event has occurred). Once it was perceived that Jesus was the unique Son of God, soon to be considered to be “God the Son,” It is in no way surprising that followers of Jesus would have believed and taught that Jesus was and is omniscient. Therefore, it was reasoned or at least assumed that Jesus must have known prior to his death precisely when and how he would be killed and when and how he would rise from the dead. Resurrection vaticinia ex eventu were therefore an entirely normal development. After it was proclaimed and taught, however, that Jesus had known and had revealed to his disciples that within three days after his death he would be raised from the dead, it became necessary to emphasize that his followers could not understand and did not remember Jesus’ resurrection predictions until after Jesus’ death and resurrection had occurred. For if his male disciples had believed and remembered Jesus’ resurrection predictions, presumably they would have waited confidently for three days to pass, gathering early in the morning on the third day at the tomb of Jesus to welcome him back from the dead, never doubting that they would soon see him alive again, instead of doubting the word of the women who had experienced and then announced his resurrection to male followers of Jesus.

It is important for us to try to discern Jesus’ own perception of the suffering that he would soon endure in Gethsemane, during the horrible torture by the Roman soldiers of the crucifixion squad during the night, and on the cross. The earlier Gospels, Mark and Matthew, retained an emphasis on Jesus’ agony and suffering by utilizing the first verse of Psalm 22, “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?” as the only words of Jesus on the cross. On the other hand, the later Gospels, Luke and especially John, portray Jesus as essentially in control of the situation even while he was dying on the cross and as never in despair.

Now let us face the practical question of what we should proclaim based on this text this coming Sunday. We can portray how clever Jesus was, how adamant “the Jews” were, and how slow the disciples were to recognize and to process what Jesus had said. We can marvel at the daring and strength of Jesus as he drove men and animals from the temple court. Or, as a result of a more intense study of this text within the broader context of the Fourth Gospel and of the Synoptics, we can proclaim that this text reveals some of the things that the people of the Johannine community believed about Jesus and wrote about some of the Jews who were contemporary with the Johannine community during the time of the development of the Fourth Gospel. We can demonstrate how the people of the Fourth Gospel community formulated this passion-resurrection prediction as an additional inducement to faith in the Johannine Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. It will be helpful to get back as much as possible into the situation of the people who developed and first used this text. It will be helpful to express our faith as they expressed their faith, but without condemning the Jews. Certainly, we want our proclamation this coming Sunday to be both faith-inducing and edifying.

1 Corinthians 1:18-25

It is probable that this text was chosen to be used with John 2:13-22 because, like John 2:13-22, it is an indication that many Jews during the decades after the death of Jesus were asking those who were followers of Jesus for some indication that the human condition and especially their human condition was improved as a result of the death of Jesus and the efforts of Jesus’ followers. From the standpoint of the Jews, there was an expectation that when the Messiah would come, a new age of peace, security, joy, and happiness for all people would occur. They were asking for indications of this sort, not for miracles as such, but for radically changed political, social, and spiritual conditions. If the political, social, and spiritual conditions not only of the Jews but of all people had improved dramatically as a result of Jesus’ life and death, most Jews probably would have accepted Jesus as having been the Messiah.

Most Jews, however, saw little evidence that the human condition had improved dramatically as a result of the life and death of Jesus. Instead, as a result of the attempt by nationalistically minded Jews to attain their autonomy in Galilee and in Judea that had been crushed by the Romans with terrible suffering by the Jews, the condition of Jews had decreased horribly. Pressure from followers of Jesus who were placing the blame for Jesus’ suffering and death on the Jews and were at the same time trying to persuade Jews to become followers of Jesus certainly did not improve the human condition of the Jews. By our becoming aware of this, we as Christians can have a better understanding of why antagonism against the Jews by Christians, why anti-Jewish polemic in the Newer Testament documents and in the Church, and why anti-Semitism by Christians throughout most of the history of the Church have always been so counterproductive for Christians, especially when some of them have continued to try to “convert” Jews to Christianity. It would be helpful if we could explain some of this in our message this coming Sunday.

Paul wrote that the Jews ask for signs and that the Greeks seek wisdom, as apparently many of them did during the first century of the common era. Was not their search valid? Should not our proclamation also be intellectually respectable? Paul’s point here, however, apparently was that his message centered on the crucifixion and on the resurrection of Jesus. So should our message as well. Are we not called in our situation to proclaim that message in ways that are appropriate and helpful where we are, just as Paul was called to do in his situation?

Psalm 19

The reason this text was selected for the Third Sunday in Lent in Series B is probably the connection between Psalm 19:7b, “The testimony of the Lord is sure. It makes even the simple person wise,” and Paul’s insistence in 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 that the message of Christ crucified brings the power and the wisdom of God to everyone who will accept this message. Psalm 19:7-14, of course, provides for us an important insight into how Jews traditionally have regarded the Torah. These verses are similar in this respect to the greatly expanded Psalm 119:1-176.

Exodus 20:1-17

Since the Torah has been acclaimed in Psalm 19:7-14, the “heart” of the Torah in the Decalogue in this Exodus 20:1-17 Priestly account is then added as the Older Testament reading. In this connection, see the article, “Commandments in Context: The Function of Torah in Early Israel,” by Paul D. Hanson in the Lutheran Theological Seminary Bulletin, Gettysburg, PA (Summer, 1981), 14-24. Copies are available for a nominal charge for postage and handling from the Business Office, The Bulletin, Lutheran Theological Seminary, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 17325.