ROMANS 12:9-21

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE

Year A - PROPER 17

EXODUS 3:1-15. Two main themes stand out in this reading: the call of Moses and the nature of God who calls. Moses’ experience resembles very closely the call of the prophet Isaiah (Is. 6:1-8). This is not surprising since the narrative likely took its final shape about the same period of Israel’s history, the 9^th and 8^th centuries BCE. The pattern follows the same typical literary form: a vision, a response of awe mingled with initial receptiveness, the divine mission stated, and instructions given on the means of carrying out the mission.

PSALM 105:1-6, 23-26, 45C. Again we find a psalm of thanksgiving celebrating the ancient tradition of Israel as the elect people of God and God as the Lord of all human history. For this psalmist, God's "deeds ... wonderful works ... miracles ... (and) judgments," shaped this tradition (vss. 1-5). This view of israel's history must be seen as selective and idealized, for it makes no mention whatsoever of the frequent apostasy of the chosen people.

JEREMIAH 15:15-21. [Alternate] This unusual passage expresses the prophet’s desire for God’s vengeance against his persecutors. In so doing, he justifies his own behaviour and laments that he still suffers. He receives inspiration from God quite different from what he sought. He must repent of his own self-pity so that others may be drawn to him. Only then will he be delivered from wicked and ruthless enemies. God’s response to faithful servants is to give them greater service.

PSALM 26:1-8. [Alternate] The psalmist pleads innocence and seeks God’s vindication after being accused of some unstated but serious crime by godless and unscrupulous enemies. A certain liturgical note creates the impression that it may have been used in quasi-judicial settings for more than a single individual.

ROMANS 12:9-21. This passage contains some very worldly counsel as applicable today as it was nearly two millennia ago when Paul wrote it. In particular it emphasizes what Paul meant by the new covenant relationship in which these new Christians stood because of their faith and how they were to live in the world as those whose relationships fully represented the will of God.

Luke's parallel passage excludes the incident (Luke 9:21-22), but does tell of the prediction of Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection as part of his admonition following Peter's messianic confession. The fact that Jesus' teaching about his death is found in all three gospels indicates that it had a very strong oral tradition behind it.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS.

EXODUS 3:1-15. Two main themes stand out in this reading: the call of Moses and the nature of God who calls. The narrative comes from the J and E documents of the 9th and 8th centuries respectively. It resembles very closely the call of the prophet Isaiah (Is. 6:1-8). This is not surprising since these documents were composed during the period of the later monarchy when prophesy was on the ascendance. The pattern followed in both narratives follows the same typical literary form: a vision, a response of awe mingled with initial receptiveness, the divine mission stated, and instructions given on the means of carrying out the mission.

In this instance, Moses' vision came in the natural setting of a burning bush while shepherding sheep for his father-in-law. Isaiah's vision came in ritual setting. Other prophets received their calls in historical environments (Jeremiah) or mythological metaphors (Ezekiel). However meaningful the symbol of the burning bush has been in the Reformed (i.e. Presbyterian) tradition, here it means that Yahweh took the initiative to reveal to Moses Yahweh's purposeful presence. The symbols of Yahweh's presence exhibit a certain degree ofconfusion. Moses saw only the fire, a physical manifestation of a deity's presence derived from animism. In vs. 2 an angelic messenger, an imaginative embodiment of the deity, appeared in the burning bush; yet in vs. 4 Yahweh spoke directly to Moses in a typical prophetic communication (vss. 5-7). The implication is that Yahweh is present, but does not come too close as to destroy the human approached.

Moses' response to the vision (vs. 3) was again typical of the prophetic form; he was awed but curious, thus showing his initial receptivity. Only after hearing what would be required of him did his reluctance take hold. The mission given to him involved great courage, great danger and a divine promise. The situation of the Israelites in Egypt had become disastrous and intolerable. This description, of course, was an after the fact historical analysis by someone who enjoyed the benefits of the exodus. All preaching and literature, especially not a few of the psalms, the prophetic period featured the direct initiative of Yahweh in Israel's history. Our modern difficulty is recognizing how, where and when that prophetic insight still applies to contemporary events either in judgment or in the fulfilment of promise.

The subsequent exchange between Moses and Yahweh centred on the authority which Moses was to exercise in carrying out his mission. No one would believe him; hence the importance of the name "I am." A name expressed the nature of the person so designated. By this name the narrator asked, "What kind of a god was this who intervened in Israel's destiny?" It meant that Yahweh was present and intimately involved in shaping that destiny. Yahweh knew what washappening to the Israelites in those days. Yahweh hated injustice and helped the oppressed to find freedom. But Yahweh also needed the help of Moses and all the descendants of the patriarchs to accomplish the divine purpose. That is a message which still rings true in our modern age and in a developing global society. People of faith may still respond to the call of God to declare and effectively implement God's purpose so prophetically described in this story.

PSALM 105:1-6, 23-26, 45C. Again we find a psalm of thanksgiving celebrating the ancient tradition of Israel as the elect people of Yahweh and Yahweh as the Lord of all human history. For this psalmist, Yahweh's "deeds ... wonderful works... miracles ... (and) judgments," shaped this tradition (vss. 1-5). This view of Israel's history must be seen as selective and idealized, for it makes no mention whatsoever of the frequent apostasy of the chosen people.

The psalm was in existence at the time of the assembling of the Books of

Chronicles, certainly no earlier than the 5th or 4th centuries BCE. Vss. 1-15 of this psalm form part of the composite poem in 1 Chronicles 16:8-36. Excerpts from Psalms 96 and 106 make up the remainder of that poem. After reciting with the glories of the patriarchal period in vss. 7-22, the psalmist turns to the period of the Exodus (vss. 23-36). This reading has too many breaks in the story as shown by the abrupt truncation of the Exodus narrative at vs. 26. It might be advisable to read the whole psalm in worship to gain both the full meaning and the festive context of the poem.

Obviously this psalm was created for worship purposes, probably at some great national festival. The reading ends with the bare doxology, perhaps a shout of praise from the congregation on hearing this recitation of Israel's past. Yet this much glorified narrative had a noble purpose. Like many of our own festive national events, it celebrates the identity of the people and gives them a *raison d'etre*. This makes the psalm more relevant to our own time than to the distant time of Israel's exodus from Egypt or to the period of the Second Temple in Jerusalem when Persian and Greek overlords dominated the political and economic history of Yahweh's chosen people.

Yahweh's covenant with Israel had a profoundly moral and spiritual purpose. Yahweh, not the Israelite tribes, had initiated it not for Israel's greatness and glory, which this psalm appears to celebrate so profusely. God's intention was to create the grounds for divine sovereignty in the world among all peoples. As Wilfred Cantwell Smith pointed out in his *Towards A World Theology*, (Orbus Books, 1989) theologians, historians and intellectuals in all religious traditions, as well as political leaders in many nations, are only now beginning to come to grips with this reality. With prophetic imagination, Smith sets this task before the religious traditions of the world as the main intellectual and political enterprise for the next century.

Some interpreters of this passage link it with 15:10-14. Those verses refer to the Babylonian invasion and occupation. Vss. 13-14 duplicate 17:3-4 where they appear more suitable to the context. Despite expressing the prophet’s strong lament similar to vss. 15-21, vss. 10-12 appear to be a separate oracle.

Venting strong feelings of vengeance toward his enemies appears to have been habitual for Jeremiah (cf. 11:20; 12:3; 17:18; 18:23; 20:11). We may tend to see this as excessive, but we also must remember the suffering from his own people that Jeremiah endured when he denounced their apostasy from their covenant with Yahweh and willingness to negotiate subjugating treaties with the invader. We only need to recall the reaction of some of our fellow citizens today to the tragedies of terrorist bombings.

Another facet of Jeremiah’s character appears to have been self-justification. He certainly found the word of the Lord the cause of much pain and suffering for himself.

Like his contemporary Ezekiel, he saw the role of being a prophet in the disastrous period of Israel’s exile as oppressive. He laments that it is exceedingly so. He goes so far in vs. 18 as accusing Yahweh to have failed him, even “deceitful” like a brook that runs only after rain. Yet his lament brings forth a moment of intense inspiration. He too must repent of his own self-pity and accusations against Yahweh. Only then can he utter Yahweh’s will in these distressing times. A similar thought can be found in expressive metaphors in 12:5. While much shorter, Yahweh’s reply to his prophet is reminiscent of the dramatic reply to Job in Job 38-41.

Faithfully performing one’s religious duties can be a trap for self-righteous people. This only increases the danger of hypocrisy and self-deception. Some sense of this lurks behind the words of this psalm. It has strong similarity to Pss. 3-5; 7 and 17, but it does not conclude with a vow or offering of thanks and praise typical of most laments (cf. 5:11-12; 7:17).

Boldly challenging Yahweh to test his heart and mind (vss.2-3), the psalmist find reassurance in the rituals of the temple (vss. 6-7). He appears to be aware of his coming fate, yet he cannot believe that Yahweh would deal with him as with other, more obvious sinners (vs. 9). Unlike Jeremiah, however, he does not give any indication of being the least bit aware of any shortcomings in his own behaviour.

As a member of the covenant of Israel and a rabbi of the Pharisees, the law had meant everything to Paul. It had expressed in very explicit terms what was for all Jews the will of God. He had now come to see the will of God in a new light. It had to do with relationships - with God and with other human beings. Because of his new relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ, all his relationships with other people had totally changed. So in this passage he describes what God intended human relationships to be. If applied in everyday life, it would, as Paul had advocated in vs. 2, transform and renew everyone's relationships.

The details of this moral counsel greatly resemble Paul's summary of the "fruits of the Spirit" in Galatians 5:22-23. This should not surprise us, for as a learned scholar Paul had come to understand with profound insight, and in this letter sought to explain to this Jewish and Gentile congregation in Rome, the relationship between Israel's ancient covenant with Yahweh, a saving faith in Jesus, the Messiah/Christ, and the life of ordinary citizens of the Roman world. Our world is not so different in many ways, at least in its moral characteristics. So the practical qualities of the Christian life Paul advocates for the Romans has ever bit as much relevance for us. The question is not what will be the result, but who will dare to do it.

MATTHEW 16:21-28. These few verses contain two prophecies of different kinds. First there is Jesus telling the disciples about his pending death and resurrection. We must remember that Matthew wrote this with fifty to sixty years of hindsight, so he knew what had actually happened. Undoubtedly this colored his report of the prediction. He does give a reality check, however, taken directly from the Markan account (Mark 8:32-33), by including Peter's abrupt rejection of the prediction and Jesus' equally severe rebuke (vss. 22-23). Luke's parallel passage excludes the incident (Luke 9:21-22), but does tell of the prediction of Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection as part of his admonition following Peter's messianic confession. The fact that Jesus' teaching about his death is found in all three gospels indicates that it had a very strong oral tradition behind it.

The same can be said of Jesus' words in the remaining part of the passage which differ in all three gospels only in the defining of its audience. In Matthew and Luke, only the disciples heard them. But in Mark, they were spoken to the crowd whom Jesus deliberately called to him so that they too would hear what the disciples heard.

The life of self-denial and sacrifice of which Jesus spoke has been real enough for those who would follow him throughout the past two millennia. It has filled the meditations of saints and martyrs as well as offering rich metaphors for sacred poetry and the hymnody of the church. The cross is but one of those metaphors, albeit the most powerful. The actual experience, however, can be found in even the humblest life. For example, how many great leaders in whatever field of endeavor attribute their success to the sacrifice of their parents?

The eschatological prophecy which ends the passage has caused some difficulty for interpreters, especially the statement in vs. 28 that some of those who heard it would witness the second coming before their deaths. Of course, that did not happen as predicted. Writing toward the end of the 1st century, Matthew would have been well aware of this. Later generations regarded this statement as metaphorical and claimed that had been fulfilled at Pentecost.

On the other hand, Mark had spoken only of the necessity for acknowledging the Son of Man and had separated that saying from the prediction about the timing of the second coming as if they had different sources. Matthew put the two statements together as a prediction of the last judgment. Since eschatological sayings were common in those times, Jesus himself may well have believed that God's glorious reign would come within a generation. Nonetheless, he repeatedly counseled against speculating when this would happen and insisted that people be prepared

for it at any time. What is more important from Matthew's point of view is the fact that Jesus is now the risen and glorified sovereign before whom all humanity stands accountable.

Mark may well give the essential character of judgment better than does Matthew in this instance. How one responds to Jesus Christ himself, not one's deeds or misdeeds, is what really matters. A 20th century poet, G.A Studdert-Kennedy, has given an imaginative description of the final judgment we all shall face. It amounts to a single word which Christ will ask of everyone concerning our mortal life: "Well?"

-30-