INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE

INTRODUCTION TO THE SCRIPTURE

Year A - PROPER 23

EXODUS 32:1-14. While Moses communed with God on the holy mountain, the people persuaded Aaron, Moses' brother, to lead them in worshipping an idol cast in the image of a calf, a well-known symbol of fertility worship in the ancient Middle East.

Modern biblical studies suggest that it was not until after Israel's return from exile, nearly a thousand years after the time of Moses, that monotheism became the core of Israel's religious tradition.

PSALM 106:1-6, 19-23. The psalmist exults in God=s steadfast love for and many providential acts toward Israel. The second part of the reading summarizes the incident of worshiping the golden calf.

ISAIAH 25:1-9. (Alternate) The prophet rejoices in God=s future deliverance of Israel from oppression the rebuilding of Jerusalem as the holy city of God. It is likely that this prophecy was uttered after the return from exile in Babylon in 539 BCE, not by Isaiah who lived two centuries earlier.

PSALM 23. (Alternate) This shepherd's psalm is perhaps the most loved of all in our Bible. It still brings strength and solace to the faithful.

PHILIPPIANS 4:1-9. Faith, friendship, reconciliation and strong, ethical behaviour are all wrapped into these few verses. They are among the most intimate words written by the austere apostle Paul. Since this was the first congregation he had founded in Macedonia, a northern province of Greece, he had a very special relationship with the Christians of Philippi.

MATTHEW 22:1-14. The parable tells of a royal banquet to which outsiders were welcomed after all the invited guests sent their excuses for refusing has many undertones. It condemns those who refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah. It is also a prophecy about the messianic banquet which was a traditional part of the Jewish expectation of the coming of the Messiah at the end of history.

A MORE COMPLETE ANALYSIS:

EXODUS 32:1-14. While Moses communed with God on the holy mountain, the people persuaded Aaron, Moses' brother, to leads them in worshipping an idol cast in the image of a calf, a well-known symbol of fertility worship in the ancient Middle East.

Modern biblical studies suggest that it was not until after Israel's return from exile in Babylon, several hundred years after the presumed time of Moses, that monotheism became the core of Israel's religious tradition. A few scholars have also speculated that Moses and the Israelites of the Exodus were remnants of the Egyptian followers of the revolutionary monotheist Pharaoh Akhenaton who ruled for only fifteen years in the mid-14^th century BCE. Akhenaton tried to install the one god Aton, represented by the sun, as the only god of the Egyptians. He brought on himself the wrath of the ancient priesthood and many powerful classes whose livelihood depended on the traditional deities. They soon overthrew him and returned to the long established traditions. Since few records exist from that brief period of Egyptian history, no proof has ever been found of any link with the Israelites. (http://www.jimloy.com/egypt/akhenatn.htm).

Cecil B. De Mille used the spectacle of the Israelites worshipping the golden calf as one of the key dramatic moments of his 1956 movie, The Ten Commandments. With cautious cinematography, he excluded the most lurid scenes of the sexual promiscuity that usually accompanied the false reverence for the exotic idol. But even the off-camera orgy was enough to bring one parishioner to his pastor asking for an explanation of what was happening.

Making and worshipping idols transgressed the first and most important of the commandments. (Or second in some lists.) When Moses delayed in returning from his epiphany on the mountain, his brother Aaron succumbed to the pleading of the mob for a more visible object of worship in the Egyptian tradition. Not unknown in Egyptian traditions, the young bull as an idol of deity was better known in Asia Minor, Syria, Phoenicia and Mesopotamia. The issue seems to have been the public outcry for a visible deity to lead them through their wilderness journey. King Jeroboam I who reigned over the northern ten tribes after the disruption of the united kingdom of David and Solomon is said to have used two similar idols representing Yahweh at Bethel and Dan. They served to reject the centralizing of worship in Solomon=s temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 12:26-13:32; 14:1-18.) These latter narratives show how long the alternative tradition lasted in the religious memory of the Israelites.

At the instigation of Yahweh, Moses returned to the idolatrous site at the foot of the mountain, castigated them for their behaviour, blamed his brother Aaron for leading them astray and forced the Israelites to undergo an ordeal. Yahweh would have destroyed them with a plague, but Moses= supplication changed Yahweh=s mind (32:14). So the covenant endured and the journey to the Promised Land continued despite this tragic incident.

There may well be several different traditions wound together in Ex. 32. On the other hand, it resurfaced again and again in the Hebrew scriptures (Deut. 9:16,21; 2 Kings 10:29; 17:16; 2 Chron. 11:15; 13:8; Neh. 9:18; Ps. 106:19; Hosea 8:5-6; 10:5; 13:2).

This indicates how influential the story must have been and how long the idolatry persisted as an alternate religious rite. In post-biblical Judaism, the episode was a source of embarrassment and anxiety for many interpreters. The rabbis even conceded that all the calamities that had ever befallen Israel originated with the golden calf. Rabbi Akiba, foremost of rabbinic Judaism=s interpreters, even made God admit that he had caused Israel to worship the calf so that Israel=s salvation might ensue from their gravest sin. The intention of this line of thought was to renew Israel=s hope and self-respect by assuring them of Yahweh=s continued forgiveness and love. In Christian polemic literature it became a symbol of the crime of the crucifixion and refusal to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah (cf. Acts: 7:41-53). Augustine went so far as to draw a parallel between the powder made from the calf=s head given to the people of drink and a sacrament. Thus the worship of the calf became the worship of the devil.

A rather sharp distinction also exists in the moods behind vss. 1-5 and vss. 6-48. Rejoicing in Yahweh=s constant love and repeated acts of salvation marks the introduction. A somewhat doleful lament about Israel=s history in response to Yahweh=s call and care darkens the remainder. Although some may see here two separate compositions, it is best to regard the first few verses as an introduction to the rest of the psalm. Unlike Ps. 105 which recites many of the same events in Israel=s history, this is a sad tale revealing a repeated pattern of sin, appeals to Yahweh for help, deliverance and subsequent forgetfulness. (Cf. also Ps. 78; Neh. 9:5-37.) The psalm may have been composed for some unknown liturgical occasion. Vss. 1, 47-48 are quoted verbatim in 1 Chron. 34-36 suggesting a dependence of one on the other and a probable date in the Persian post-exilic period (6^th - 4^th centuries BCE).

The second part of the reading stands as a succinct review of the incident originally described in Ex. 32. The accusation that the Israelites Aexchanged the glory of God for the image of an ox that eats grass@ could not be more plaintive. How could they have fallen so low? The use of the name Horeb, for Sinai, the only occurrence of this Deuteronomic term in the Psalter, again suggests a late date and the formula that runs through that documentary collection. Repeated failure to keep the covenant and Yahweh=s repeated forgiveness and redemption of Israel from the consequences of its sin forms the basis for the psalmist=s initial rejoicing, as well as the final plea for salvation and doxology (vss. 47-48).

My professor of OT at McGill, later of Princeton, Dr. R.B.Y. Scott, wrote The Interpreter=s Bible introduction and exegesis of Isaiah 1-39 (vol. 5. Abingdon Press, 1956) at the time he was lecturing on the OT prophets. I naturally turn to his work as my basis for this summary. Scott held that the whole section of Isaiah from which this reading is taken, chs. 24-27, is Aa collection of eschatological prophecy, psalms and prayers dating from the later postexilic period ... appended to an earlier edition of the book ... which comprised the bulk of the material now found in chs. 1-23.@

Scott=s view of this passage is that a victory over some unnamed enemy city is celebrated in vss. 1-5. A feast of triumph and an end to sorrow form the theme of vss. 6-9. The RCL uses it as the OT lesson for Easter Day in Year B, Easter Evening in Years A, B and C, and All Saints in Year B. As such, it is appropriate for reading on the day on which we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus and of all Christian saints. Christians of the lst century CE found it especially worth remembering. Its words were repeated in Revelation 21:4 and interpreted with deepened faith because they knew that Christ had risen from the dead. This seems to be particularly fitting to celebrate God=s victory over sin and death.

The reference to a feast in vs. 6 undoubtedly recalled to early Christian minds the messianic feast featured in later Jewish eschatology (cf. Baruch 29:3-8; 2 Esdras 6:52; Mark 2:19; Matt. 22:1-14; Luke 14:15-24; Revelation 19:9, 17). In earlier times, festal observances marked the renewal of the covenant. The promise of feasting always enhanced the expectations of those about to be freed from oppression or in celebration of similar events initiated by Yahweh. The Passover meal was one such festive occasion, originally eaten with the anticipation of freedom and remembered as such in Jewish tradition ever since.

On the other hand, as Scott pointed out, there was a parallel to vs. 8 in the Canaanite myth of Baal=s victory over Mot, the god of death and the underworld. A similar myth also existed in the reappearance of Attis in Asiatic mysteries. Christian belief found both of the traditions helpful in interpreting the resurrection, especially to Gentiles familiar with those myths, however different the Christ-event may have been. This in no way discounts the meaning and value of either the Jewish or the Christian celebrations. As Scott wrote: AThe idea of God=s ultimate triumph over his enemies will also be a victory over death and pain takes on a new and deeper meaning here, because the thought of God was more true and worthy in Israel than in north Canaan centuries before. And when in Revelation 21:4 the words of this passage were quoted, it was in the light of a new certainty which was theirs who knew that Christ had risen.@

The metaphor of death being swallowed up (vs. 8) is particularly vivid in view of the almost universal practice of human burial from prehistorical times. It still sounds the note of victory at the start of many services of Christian burial.

The reference to Arebuke@ (KJV) (Areproach@ [RSV] or Adisgrace@ [NRSV]) suggests that death was more than a cause for grief. It recalls the opening episode in the story of Ruth. (1:1-9) For women in ancient Israel, the death of a husband was considered more than an end to economic security. It was indeed a rebuke from God and a disgrace in their community, especially if the death had occurred as a national disaster such as defeat in war or an extended famine. These were interpreted as acts of Yahweh=s vengeance in punishment for sin.

In a rural village in Ontario within the past few decades, where women outlived their husbands by many years, widows were frequently excluded from social gatherings until they found their Aproper@ place in a fellowship of other widows. A young widow who was still physically attractive was shunned as a genuine threat by other women with husbands who might be led astray. Gossip could quickly attach Asinful@ behavior to her name if she was seen keeping company with any man, married or single.

That this hymn of praise has an eschatological emphasis comes out in the phrases vs. 9 Aon that day@ and Awe have waited for him.@ The anticipated salvation lies in the future, as is our expectation of resurrection which Paul had in mind when he referred this passage in 1 Cor. 15:54.

PSALM 23. (Alternate) This shepherd's psalm is perhaps the most loved of all in our Bible. It occurs six times in the three year cycle of the RCL. It still brings strength and solace to the faithful. Ancient tradition and a title in the Hebrew scriptures claimed that it was from the hand of David, Israel's legendary shepherd king. Though not entirely impossible, it is unlikely. Reference to the Ahouse of the Lord@ in verse 6 indicates a later date, since the temple was not built until after David had died. On the other hand, prior to the building of the temple by Solomon, the tabernacle of the wilderness wanderings was also considered Yahweh=s dwelling place.

On the whole, the metaphor of the divine shepherd appeared in many OT references (Ps. 100:3; Ezek. 34; 37:24). This should not surprise us because the ancient Israelites to whom the OT authors looked for their definitive traditions were primarily a pastoral people with their chief wealth represented by their flocks. During their early history, they depended on flocks of sheep for most aspects of their livelihood including food, clothing, tent, a medium of exchange and the central offering of ritual sacrifice. Even today in the thoroughly urbanized state of Israel, one can still see Palestinian shepherds with their large flocks on hillsides within a very short distance of Jerusalem and Jericho.

There is a second metaphor which memory frequently overlooks in reciting this psalm. Vs. 5 transfers the scene to the obligatory hospitality which every Middle Eastern pastoral society extended to anyone fleeing from enemies. Tribal feuds caused many such flights. A hunted man merely had to touch the tent of anyone with whom he might seek refuge to lay upon his host the requirement of providing sanctuary and sustenance. As seen by the psalmist, the divine host provides far more than is necessary: indeed a feast with sweet unguents poured on his head and an overflowing wine cup.

The scene again changes to the temple (vs. 6) where the psalmist expresses his delight in continuing to worship as long as life lasts. While this psalm is a favorite for use in modern funerals services when Adwelling in the house of the Lord@ becomes a heavenly image for us, the psalmist considered death as a terminal point to be avoided if at all possible (vs. 4). Nevertheless, who can gainsay the measure of comfort which people still find in this most familiar of psalms.

PHILIPPIANS 4:1-9. Faith, friendship, reconciliation and strong, ethical behavior are all wrapped into these few verses. They are among the most intimate words written by the austere apostle Paul. Since this was the first congregation he had founded in Macedonia, a northern province of Greece, he had a very special relationship with the Christians of Philippi.

Quarrelling in any modern congregation causes great disruption. Apparently the same was true in Paul=s day. We know nothing other than their names about the two women Euodia and Syntyche. Nor do we know whether their quarrel was personal or theological. The Aloyal companion@ whom Paul asked to help them resolve their differences may refer to Epaphroditus whom Paul had sent as his letter carrier.

Actually Paul looked past this temporary distress among the Philippians and invited them to rejoice with him in the Lord. There is a sense that this invitation has a double meaning. Paul had a constant awareness of the presence of Christ throughout his ministry and sought to share this with his converts. He also believed implicitly in the early return of Christ. The simple declaration, AThe Lord is near,@ may have been spoken with both meanings in mind.

Paul was also a man of prayer. Here he speaks of two very significant ways of praying: supplication and thanksgiving. It was normal for him to begin his letters with a word of thanksgiving for those who he addressed. (Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 1:4; Phil. 1:3; Col. 1:3; 1 Thess. 1:2; 2 Thess. 1:3. He felt it very normal to bring every concern he had before the throne of grace expecting that he would ultimately know God=s will in each situation. It was this life of prayer that gave him Athe peace that passes understanding.@

Strong moral behaviour marked all of Paul=s admonitions to his correspondents. Here in vs. 8 he summarized how he believed every person should live in the real world. In doing so, the Philippians would be following his example and doing as he had taught them (vs. 9). It may be difficult for Christians of our day to realize just who made up many of these early congregations. As it had been with Jesus in many instances, it was the moral outcasts like prostitutes and the ethically corrupt like tax collectors who were attracted to the Christian way. Paul=s ministry in Philippi had begun with two people, neither of whom would have been among the prestigious citizens of that Roman city B a woman of commerce and the town jailer (Acts 16:14-15, 25-40). In the households of both of these who were baptized would have been many slaves too. Their former life had been like, Paul expected everyone to behave according to the same high standard.

MATTHEW 22:1-14. The parable tells of a royal banquet to which outsiders were welcomed after all the invited guests had sent their excuses. Their refusals has many undertones. It condemns those who refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah. It is also a prophecy about the messianic banquet which was a traditional part of the Jewish expectation of the coming of the Messiah at the end of history.

Note first that it is a parable of the kingdom. As such it has a distinct eschatological aspect as well as an Aalready, but not yet@ tenor. Throughout his ministry Jesus accepted into his company those whom others rejected and in turn was fully accepted by them. Bruce Chilton=s theory that Jesus himself was something of an outcast, a mamzer, due to his uncertain parentage emphasizes this very clearly. (Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography. Doubleday, 2000) The gospel tradition described him as a constant disruptive element to the social control of the religious authorities. This too is reflected in the parable.

Luke 14:15-22 gives a brief and slightly different version of the same parable. So does the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas 64. We naturally conclude that it was a common possession of the early church and oft repeated because of its strong emphasis on the sharp divisions within the social milieu in which the Christian faith struggled to survive. The leadership of the mainline churches in advocating social justice and the preferential option for the poor in the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries finds more scriptural foundations here too.

More puzzling, however, is the latter part of the reading (vss. 11-14) which seem to be appended to the basic parable. It introduces a note of judgment found in other parables referring to an eschatological separation of good from evil at the end of time. (Cf. Matt. 8:12; 13:42; 24:51; 25:30.) Certainly Matthew generally presents the church as consisting of both good and evil until the final judgment determines who will be admitted to God=s eternal presence. Most middle of the road, tolerant Christians today shrink from the judgmental element of our tradition. As relativists we tend to see things subjectively in tones of grey rather than black and white. We look for the universalist aspects of our tradition, not to obvious judgmentalism to be found in many of the parables. Can it be true that not all kinds of people will be acceptable to Jesus? But does that not conflict with the claim that he is the Saviour of all?

That is where we come up against the seemingly harsh statement that ends the passage, AFor many are called, but few are chosen.@ Many commentators deal with vss. 11-14 as a different parable dealing with a marriage feast rather than a royal banquet. The main parable, however, also tells of a wedding banquet hosted by the king for his son. It would have been an insult to the host for a wedding guest not to have come appropriately dressed. (This pastor recalled performing a marriage ceremony disturbed by the father of the groom drunkenly banging his cane on the floor of the church immediately behind the wedding party.) Being excluded for a variety of reasons has been part of the church=s history, doctrine and moral behaviour being only some of those. Racial issues have divided denominations for generations. Evolution and creationism currently brings forth heated debates in some churches. Homosexuality is another painful issue confronting congregations and denominations.

It is easy for us to define the criteria for acceptance into the presence of God. In all probability, the dialogue B too often a dialogue of the deaf - as to who is and who is not acceptable will go on to the end of time.

-30-