Finding the Lessons

I try to post well in advance of the upcoming Sunday.

You will want to scroll down to find the bible study for the lessons closest to the upcoming Sunday.

The blog will be labeled with proper, liturgical date, and calendar date.

You can open the monthly calendar to the left and find the readings in order.

You can also search below by entering the liturgical date, scripture, or proper. This will pull up all previous posts.

Enjoy.

Search This Blog by Proper and Year (ie: Proper 8B or Christmas C or Advent 1A)

Monday, February 17, 2025

Last Epiphany, Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord, March 2, 2025




Prayer

O god, whose Son, your Beloved, was transfigured in dazzling light, with reverent awe we enter your holy presence.  Your presence cannot be contained in tents our hands have made but must be sought in your creatures and all that your hands have fashioned.  Lead us from the high mountain to seek you in the lowly of the earth, serving them, after Christ’s example, in peace and sacrificial love.  We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God for ever and ever. Amen.

From Prayers for Sunday and Seasons, Year C, Peter J. Scagnelli, LTP, 1992.


Some Thoughts on Luke 9:28-36(37-43)


"God promises us that through Scripture we will meet God, and our identities as individuals and a community of faith will be formed and transformed."


"Transforming Transfiguation," Alyce McKenzie, Edgy Exegesis, 2013.

"The Transfiguration is an apt Preface to Lent and Jesus' journey to Jerusalem, because what lies ahead is both a confrontation between the non-violent justice of the Kingdom of God and the violent injustice of the Roman Empire; as well as the non-violent way of the Beloved versus the hoped-for victory by the Messiah."


Holy Textures, Understanding the Bible in its own time and in ours, Luke 9:28-36, (37-43), David Ewart, 2013.


Oremus Online NRSV Gospel Text

Transfiguration and the Vision of the Other: Seeing and Being Seen in Christ


We conclude Epiphany with the Transfiguration and from time to time the Feast of the Transfiguration falls on a Sunday.  As Luke Timothy Johnson calls the passage “Recognizing Jesus,” we are not surprised that this season of revelation and light ends on the mountaintop.
 
If you are interested in how the other texts tell the story of the transfiguration, you can find the parallels for today’s Gospel reading here:
Luke
Matthew
Mark
vv. 28-36
vv. 37-43a

One of the things I want to draw our attention to as we begin to survey this Gospel reading is that the lectionary has divided it in an odd place. I very much prefer the passage to be read as Luke 9:18-36. Here we have an ongoing disagreement between the New Testament scholar and the liturgist—one concerned with textual integrity, the other with the rhythm of worship. Overlooking that, we see plainly as we open our Bibles that Luke intends for this moment to transition us from the miracle of loaves and fishes into a private time of prayer between the teacher and his disciples.

In the previous passage, the miracle of multiplication and abundance concludes as the ochlos—the crowd—becomes something new, transformed into the laos, the people of God. The inbreaking of the reign of God into the world is immediately followed by Jesus drawing apart for prayer. And in that moment of solitude, Jesus turns to his disciples and asks the question upon which the entire Gospel hinges: Who am I? Peter responds with a revelation: You are the Messiah of God. This is no ordinary confession; it is an unveiling, an eschatological vision breaking into the present moment. But the confession comes with a charge: If you would follow me, deny yourselves, take up your cross, and die daily. To see the Messiah is to be drawn into his way of being in the world—to live, suffer, and serve as he does.

From Revelation to Transfiguration

This brings us to the mountaintop. How have the disciples done with their charge? Have they understood? Are they ready?

Luke tells us, as he was praying, the transfiguration occurs. That phrase is significant. The change in Christ’s appearance, his dazzling raiment, the descent of Moses and Elijah—all of it unfolds in the midst of prayer. The vision does not come as an event external to Christ but as something that arises from within his communion with the Father. This is not the first time Luke ties divine revelation to prayer. Jesus’ baptism, his calling of the disciples, his moment of recognition as God’s beloved—all of these happen in prayer. Here, again, prayer is not merely preparation for revelation; prayer is the means by which one sees.

And what is seen? Jesus, radiant in the uncreated light of God, is revealed in the company of Moses and Elijah. The lawgiver, the prophet, and the Messiah stand together, speaking of his departure—his exodus. The imagery is unmistakable: Jesus is leading his people into a new deliverance, a new crossing over, a new transformation of their very being.

The Vision-Act of the Other

The disciples are overwhelmed. In their drowsiness, their disorientation, Peter fumbles for something familiar: Let us build three tents! This, of course, echoes the Feast of Booths, the memory of Israel’s sojourning in the wilderness. But Peter is mistaken. He sees Jesus as one among three, as if Moses, Elijah, and Christ stand on equal footing. He fails to perceive that Jesus is not simply another prophet, another voice among many. The vision must be clarified.

A cloud descends—the same cloud that led Israel through the desert, the same cloud that filled the Temple, the same cloud in which God speaks at Sinai. And then the voice: This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him.

Here, the transfiguration reaches its climax. Jesus alone stands at the center, and the Father makes clear: To see him is to see the fullness of God’s glory. But more than that, to see him is to be seen. The disciples do not merely witness transfiguration—they are themselves drawn into it. This is the vision-act of the Other: in beholding Christ, they themselves are changed. We, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed from one degree of glory to another (2 Cor. 3:18). To see Christ truly is to become like him.

This is the heart of Christian transformation. Transfiguration is not about mere perception, about understanding Christ more fully—it is about being conformed to him, about being seen by God and in that seeing, being changed. It is not merely an event upon the mountaintop; it is the pattern of Christian life.

The Church as the Place of Transfiguration

And here, perhaps, we must ask an uncomfortable question: If the disciples beheld Christ and were changed, do we expect the same in our churches? Do people who come into our worship leave transfigured? Do they, like those on the mountain, see Christ and go forth reflecting his glory? Or have we, like Peter, simply built booths—structures that keep God contained, manageable, institutionalized?

These are not liturgical questions, these are preaching questions.

The danger of Peter’s impulse is not only that he equates Jesus with Moses and Elijah—it is that he attempts to hold on to the moment rather than allowing it to shape him. How often do we do the same? How often do we mistake the form of worship for the substance of transformation? We argue over style—traditional, contemporary, charismatic, postmodern—but we rarely ask the real question: Do we expect to encounter the transfigured Christ? Do we believe, truly, that God is at work in the midst of our worship? Or have we grown tired, going through the motions, content with booths when we are called to bear the weight of glory?

As leaders of worship, we must ask: Are we attuned to the sacred things unfolding in our midst? Or are we simply moving through another Sunday, another liturgy, another sermon, another Eucharist? Are we facilitating an encounter with the Living God, or are we making church palatable, convenient, tame?

If the transfiguration teaches us anything, it is that true worship—true seeing—requires risk. It requires vulnerability. It demands that we, like the disciples, be willing to step into the cloud, to tremble at the voice of God, to descend the mountain forever changed. The church is not called to be a museum of past revelations, nor a fortress of rigid tradition, nor a spiritual marketplace offering religious goods. It is called to be the place of transfiguration. A place where Christ is seen, where the Other is encountered, where we are drawn into the ongoing, unfolding glory of God.

This is the hope of transfiguration: that as we behold Christ, we are changed. That as we see him, we are seen. That as we enter into prayer, we are drawn ever more deeply into the life of God.

And so we must ask: Are we prepared for such a vision? Or, like Peter, will we fumble for the familiar, trying to keep God within our grasp? The invitation stands before us: Come up the mountain. Behold the glory. And be transfigured.

Some Thoughts on 2 Corinthians 3:12-4:2

In 2 Corinthians 3:18 Paul pictures the church as a community of faces gazing at one another lost in a hall of mirrors in a dizzying transfiguration into the image of Jesus, the Christ, the one who is to come, always deferred.

Commentary, Exodus 34:29-35, David E. Fredrickson, Preaching This Week, WorkingPreacher.org, 2016.

The epistle reading for today reminds us that the revelation of Jesus’ glory is so spectacular that it initiates the transfiguration of all who are in Christ.

"Commentary, Exodus 34:29-35, Carla Works, Preaching This Week, WorkingPreacher.org, 2013."

Paul pits his transforming gospel against the one espoused by those who appeal to the biblical authority of laws and commandments and who see Jesus as primarily promoting a new version of Moses.

"First Thoughts on Passages on Year C Epistle Passages in the Lectionary," Transfiguration, William Loader, Murdoch University, Uniting Church in Australia.

When Jesus enters our heart, he brings the renewing image of God. We are reclothed with what Adam and Eve lost. We are reclothed in righteousness and now we understand and love the truth. We can once again judge rightly between the good and the bad when before we were slaves of sin.

"Made in the Image of God," Bill Green, in Kerux: The Online Journal of Biblical Theology (Reformed).

In Second Corinthians, Paul weaves a vision of unveiled glory, where the Spirit liberates humanity from veiled understanding into the radiant image of Christ. The veil—symbolic of separation, obscurity, and the limitations of the old covenant—is lifted in Christ, revealing not only the fullness of divine presence but the path of transformation by which humanity is drawn deeper into God’s likeness.

This passage is a deeply embodied articulation of Christian anthropology and eschatology. Paul is not simply speaking of a conceptual enlightenment but of a real, ontological change—one that unfolds in the dynamic relationship between the human person and the Spirit of God. This transformation is neither passive nor instantaneous but occurs from one degree of glory to another, suggesting a participatory movement, an ongoing transfiguration that occurs within the body of Christ. It is the Spirit, the Lord, who enacts this process, calling forth human agency in response.

This unveiling also carries an ethical charge: we do not lose heart. To be conformed to Christ is not merely to behold the truth but to enact it—to renounce deception, to refuse manipulation, and to stand before the world in a posture of integrity. Paul’s contrast between cunning and open truth-telling aligns with a sacramental understanding of reality: just as the veil is removed in Christ, so must we live as those who do not obscure, distort, or commodify the word of God.

Transformed by the Spirit, the church needs to manifest God's revealed glory. The church should not hide the gospel message. The church serves as a reflective surface that displays Christ's light because of divine grace rather than holding it as its own property.

Where the Spirit is, there is freedom. This is not a disembodied, individualistic liberty but a liberation into the fullness of human vocation acted out amid the community of the world: to see and be seen, to behold and be transformed, to be conformed to Christ from one degree of glory to another. It is a vision that is at once deeply eschatological and profoundly present, calling us to live as those whose faces have been unveiled, who see the world anew in the light of the resurrection.



Some Thoughts on Exodus 34:29-35


"Today's Gospel reading dramatizes the ultimate instance of divine-human mediation, as Jesus radiated divine presence while praying, and then as he engaged with the two preeminent Old Testament agents of divine mediation at the Mount of Transfiguration."
Commentary, Exodus 34:29-35, William Yarchin, Preaching This Week, WorkingPreacher.org, 2016.


"How would our ministry change if we removed the veil between ourselves and God?"
"A Veiled Question," Ruth Everhart, The Hardest Question, 2013.


"The Lukan reading picks up the story of the transfiguration story of Jesus and as Moses was the mediator in the past, it is now Jesus who brings the revelation of God. Both Moses and Elijah are present and speak with him as his face becomes radiant from being in the presence of God."
Exodus 34:29-35, Commentary, Background, Insights from Literary Structure, Theological Message, Ways to Present the Text. Anna Grant-Henderson, Uniting Church in Australia.


"Our lives are full with commitments and activities and pleasurable leisure opportunities. This passage reminds us, however, that life's real thrills for which our souls truly long have their one true source in the spiritual sun of God's glory."
Last Sunday of Epiphany, Year C: Exodus 34:29-35, Biblische Ausbildung, Dr. Stephen L. Cook, Virginia Theological Seminary.




We have already had the episode of the Golden calf and the people's fear that Moses would not return. Moses after having dealt with their fear and anxiety returned to the mountain. He returns and his face shines because of having stood and taken in God's glory. (An interesting side note from my art history days...the translation for the word "shine" can also mean horns. This why is some depictions of Moses we see him with horns.

What happens in the transfiguration of Moses' face and the conversation between God, Moses and the people is this - God comes close. God is present and close to God's people. There is an intimacy, a relationship, a connection between God and God's people. It is not a relationship that is built upon the freedom from slavery or the people's faithfulness. It is one of actual distance. God has come close.

This idea of closeness plays with the ideas around the transfiguration...in other words...God is not ever been far away. God has always been close. From walking among his creation with his creatures, to traveling with Abraham, to this moment in the reading... and on through the story until we get the transfiguration of Jesus...God's nature is not merely transcendence (though it is that as well). God's nature is also nearness with people and creation.

God is present at the heart of creation. We see that part of what happens in the transfiguration story is not merely a seeing that the past comes forward in Moses and Elijah to bless Jesus in some form or fashion. But that the disciples are actually recognizing in Jesus, at the transfiguring moment, that he is connected with the God who has been close to God's people all along. Jesus, in the transfiguration does not merely shine like Moses. These are not literary motifs. No. Instead what we see here is that the first followers of Jesus along with the gospel authors, see that Jesus himself is the God who has been close to his people, and walked in the garden, this whole time. It is a revelation not of a new something but that Jesus, in his perfect image of the incarnation, is the same as the one God the people knew all along.







Monday, February 10, 2025

Seventh Sunday after Epiphany - February 23, 2025



Prayer


Lord, help me not to be too quick to assume my enemy is a savage just because he is my enemy. Perhaps he is your enemy because he thinks I am a savage. Or perhaps he is afraid of me because he feels that I are afraid of him. And perhaps if he believed I were capable of loving him he would no longer be my enemy. Lord, help me not to be too quick to assume my enemy is a savage just because he is my enemy.

Lord, help me not to be too quick to assume that my enemy is an enemy of God just because he is my enemy. Perhaps he is my enemy precisely because he can find nothing in me that gives glory to God. Perhaps he fears me because he can find nothing in me of God's love and God's kindness and God's patience and mercy and understanding of the weaknesses of men. Lord, help me not to be too quick to assume that my enemy is an enemy of God just because he is my enemy.

Lord, help me not to be too quick to condemn the man who no longer believes in God, for it is perhaps my own coldness and avarice, my mediocrity and materialism, my sensuality and selfishness that have killed his faith. Lord, help me not to be too quick to condemn the man who no longer believes in God. Amen

Prayer adapted from Thomas Merton, from  New Seeds of Contemplation (New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1961).


Luke 6:27-38

"Jesus? life is the best exposition of his teaching: self giving love even in utmost adversity generates life for oneself and for others. It is participation in God?s life."
"First Thoughts on Year C Gospel Passages in the Lectionary: Epiphany 7,"William Loader, Murdoch University, Uniting Church in Australia, 2001.


"The word used here for love, agape in Greek, does NOT mean romantic love, liking, or even friendship. What it does mean is whole-hearted, unreserved, unconditional desire for the well-being of the other. Expecting nothing in return."
Holy Textures, Understanding the Bible in its own time and in ours, Luke 6:27-38, David Ewart, 2013.


"Jensen (Preaching Luke's Gospel) offers this possible conclusion to a sermon on this text: Jesus' word for us today is: "I call you to live your lives out of an alternative vision of reality. I call you to live your lives as lives that reverse the values of this culture. I call you to love your enemy; turn the other cheek; give your possessions to those in need and judge not the lives of others. Be merciful even as I am merciful. I have come to nourish your entire life with my mercy. I have come to empower you with mercy in order that you may, indeed, live a new kind of life in this world." [p. 82]"
Exegetical Notes by Brian Stoffregen at CrossMarks Christian Resources.




Do not think that you can show your love for Christ by hating those who seem to be his enemies on earth... Suppose they really do hate him: nevertheless he loves them, and you cannot be united with him unless you love them too.

If you hate the enemies of the Church instead of loving them, you too will run the risk of becoming an enemy of the Church, and of Christ; for he said: Love your enemies, and he also said: He that is not with me is against me. Therefore if you do not side with Christ by loving those that he loves, you are against him.

But Christ loves all people. Christ died for all people. And Christ said there was no greater love than that a man should lay down his life for his friend.

Thomas Merton, from  New Seeds of Contemplation (New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1961).


Oremus Online NRSV Text

We have just read the sermon on the mount, the admonitions that followed, the calling of the disciples to be about the work of bringing justice to the world by serving the poor, hungry, sorrow filled, and those who are hated.

It is as if he turns to the crowd now, and makes a larger pronouncement. He suggests that justice will not be brought about in the world's terms. In other words, justice will not be brought by a revolution of the poor who violently overthrow those in authority and in power. This is not a worldly tale of a new kingdom stomping out a worldly one and then taking its place in the seats of power. (The disciples will talk about this often.) No. This is a wholly other kind of revolution.

It is one where violence is met by peace. He calls people to bless and pray for those who hate, despise, or persecute. He invites people to give their shirt and their coat to those who ask or take from them.

He reminds them that even the sinners are merciful to those whom they like. So, the Gospel is going to be different. It is about loving those who are enemies, forgiving those who persecute us and cause us harm, and caring for those who do us evil.

This is not a "doing good" or "being good" word from Jesus as an economic exchange. It is not about being nice so others will in turn be nice to you.

Walter Wink in his book Engaging the Powers does an excellent job of pulling apart the social context of this passage. He explains that turning the other cheek requires a second blow with a soiled hand. There is a particular shame code at work here and by so doing the person who strikes the second blow is revealed as having defiled the other. Likewise, to give away all your clothing is to be naked. It was forbidden to do this and Jesus is revealing that it is an unjust demand that bring's shame upon the person who takes your clothing. Wink and others talk a bit more about Matthew's version as Jesus is specific about the cheek and adds an invitation to walk an extra mile. This by the way requires just payment for inscription and puts the soldier who requires it in the debtor's seat. Much is written about these non violent invitations to resist. Furthermore, there is a good bit of debate as to Jesus' intended audience and outcome. Is this about communal/village life? Or, is this revolutionary engagement with the powers and authorities. It may indeed be both.

We need though to remember. This is not a bold new code being ascribed by Jesus to those who follow God or who follow him. No, in fact he is inviting the people to remember the conditions prescribed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. (See Leviticus 18-20) These are attitudes and requirements of love and mercy and forgiveness that reveal God's Holy people to be God's people. This is part of what differentiates them from others they will come to meet in the promised land. In fact the call to care for a stranger or sojourner in their land is an opportunity to reveal how different God's people are. See Leviticus 19 or Proverbs 25:21-22 to understand that God's people are a particular kind of people who are known for their hospitality, their kindness, and care - even to their enemies. What Jesus does is to continue God's teachings and to call people back into covenant with God.

Moreover, Jesus expands this beyond the communal life of first century religious life. Here is where I think it gets interesting. Jesus not only calls the religious to follow these prescriptions but to do so with those who are different, who do not believe, who have many gods, who are unclean, and who are outside of the religious theological sphere that breathes a rarified air of insulation. Jesus is inviting the whole of the world to be reshaped by this invitation. God's people, in Jesus' imagination, are all of the people...not just the faithful religious who can trace their ancestry back.

Furthermore, this is a key Gospel paradox and no mere peaceful protest, or communal ethic. Think for a moment with me. Jesus will in his punishment, trial, way of the cross, and death upon the cross live out all of these invitations. In so doing, then the cross adheres to itself, with Jesus firmly planted upon it, the sin and shame of the world. He is stricken, his clothes are taken, he is required to walk, he persecuted. And, in the end he gathers in the shame by saying, "Father forgive them." Upon the cross the shame of the world and society (which operates contrary to God's garden imaginary where love of enemies is standard) is taken up with Jesus on the cross, and buried down in the grave with Jesus.

To believe that this is merely a code of ethics or a way of following Jesus is to miss the deep theology that is essential in this secular age - God is acting here. God will do these things in the person of Jesus. And, God acts through us when we do these things. 

1 Corinthians 15:35-40

"Does it make any sense at all to speak of future hope if it is not embodied and social? Paul would be very uncomfortable with the popular Christian tendency to reduce future hope to the belief that our souls (whatever they are) go to heaven and that is all there is to it."
"First Thoughts on Passages on Year C Epistle Passages in the Lectionary: Epiphany 6," William Loader, Murdoch University, Uniting Church in Australia.


"There is a vast gap between a proclamation and an experience. This difference is not notable for the one doing the proclaiming, but is for the one being proclaimed to."
Kairos CoMotion Lectionary Discussion, 1 Corinthians 15:12-22, Wesley White. "A place of conversation regarding Progressive Christianity."

We continue reading from Paul's letter to the Corinthians. In our passage today we have some deep theology. Paul says, "Christ has been raised from the dead ... so all will be made alive in Christ" (15:20-23) when he comes again. Paul explores this theme with a series of analogies from nature (15:36-38):
  • seeds need to die in order to have life;
  • they change their state following burial:
  • plants have different bodies from seeds;
  • God chooses the body of a plant;
  • seeds look alike but are changed into a variety of plants.
This of course does not meet the basic understanding of horticulture today. But, nevertheless Paul is trying to make a point.

Paul then concludes with this analysis: "Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for human beings, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another."(39-40)

In Stanley Hauerwas' booke Sanctify Them in the Truth, he introduces us to the work of Dale Martin. Martin has a great book work a read: The Corinthian Body, (Yale Press, 1995). Martin's contribution to the understanding of Paul is that he reminds us that the Corinthians and Paul had a very different understanding of the body. Today we have a kind of dualist understanding (Cartisian in nature). Descartes helped us moderns separate the soul from the body. That would not be Paul's understanding.

For Paul and the Corinthians the soul and body were mixed up and porous. This has a particular meaning in our context of Paul's discussion in this chapter about the resurrection. Paul understood, and was trying to explain to his readers, that Christ's resurrection means that Christians will be resurrected. Baptism, for Paul, has inextricably connected the body of the Christian with the body of Christ. What is at stake is not simply the pollution of the body...but about hierarchy.

Remember, in Corinth there is a whole issue about eating together and the hierarchical norms of the society in which the Corinthian Christians are living. Christ undoes this hierarchy. And, for Paul, to attempt to add a hierarchy into the body of Christ and its relationship with all other Christians is particularly dangerous. (Martin, Corinthian, 131.)

So, we must be careful here as Paul begins to speak about the body as a seed. We cannot read, or transfer, what Paul is doing here into a sphere of metaphor. There is a very real and physical connection of bodies within Christian community....and between the baptized and the Christ. All worldly, secular, and societal hierarchies are destroyed by Paul in his argument about the body. Martin helps us understand that Paul's writing seeks to undermine the class aesthetics of Corinth.

To introduce class hierarchy into the body is not a mere aesthetic invasion for Paul. Instead it is an actual illness. It pollutes the body of Christ. Paul is speaking in Corinthians as if the body is being invaded by a disease. Stanley Hauerwas reminds us that we must get physical when we read Paul. He believed that much was at stake here.

Hauerwas in his sermon "On Not Holding On or Witnessing the Resurrection" writes:

....like the disciples, we would like to think that resurrection does not mean our world has been turned upside down. We would like to celebrate Jesus' "resurrection" and go on living within the presupposition and habits that sustain our lives. That is why we are tempted to try to "explain" the resurrection. Our explanations are the way we...try to "hold on" to Jesus.

He then reminds us that the resurrection cannot be explained. He writes, "That Jesus is the one raised form the dead does not require explanation. Rather Jesus raised requires witnesses." (Hauerwas, Sanctify, 274.)

This all seems a bit important as we lean into Paul's discussion of seeds. Why? Because Paul is NOT saying resurrection is like a seed...or, resurrection and seeds have a lot in common. Paul is actually saying we cannot understand the resurrection...bodies are different. God raises Jesus and in so doing raises us. Paul offers a witness here. He is really saying...Jesus died. God raised Jesus. You will die. God will raise you because you are baptized in Jesus. Seeds and stuff work in a lot of different ways. The resurrection of the body works because God raised Jesus.

Moreover, because all of this is within the framework of the eucharistic meal...when we eat and drink together we are doing so with the resurrected Lord. And, at this table the baptized eat and drink together and all manner of hierarchy and worlds are broken down. This is a peaceable table and the social forms don't have a place here. In fact, to do so, means that we pollute the whole body of the faithful.



Genesis 45:1-15


It is one of the great questions we naturally ask each time we read the story of Joseph. Why did he not, at some time during their twenty-two year separation, send word to his father that he was alive? 
Vayigash - 5779 , Genesis 45:1-15, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. "Does My Father Love Me?"

The episode is moving in itself, but it also resolves one of the central questions of the book of Genesis – sibling rivalry: Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and his brothers. Can brothers live peaceably with one another? This question is fundamental to the biblical drama of redemption, for if brothers cannot live together, how can nations? And if nations cannot live together, how can the human world survive?
Vayechi - 5779, Genesis 45:5, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. "The Future of the Past"




Now, hopefully you remember the story of Joseph and the technicolor dream coat. Here in our passage today is the great reunion of brothers.

In our Christian tradition, as with our faith ancestors – the people of Israel, words have more than meaning - words have power.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote when reflecting on our passage from Genesis,
“Judaism is a religion of holy words, and one of the themes of Genesis as a whole is the power of speech to create, mislead, harm or heal. From Cain and Abel to Joseph and his brothers [remember the story from the beginning? The brothers “They hated him Joseph and could not speak peaceably to him”] Sacks continues, “we are shown how, when words fail, violence begins.”[i]
Words have power to create, mislead, harm or heal.

The words of the brothers have harmed Joseph and his relationship with his father. The words of the brothers have harmed their own relationship with their father. The words that Joseph speaks to himself harm his relationship with his father.

There are many things that have happened between all parties involved in this sordid brotherly competition for a father’s love. This sibling rivalry between the brothers and Joseph has a lineage that raises its ugly head in the relationship between Jacob and Esau all of which perpetuate the relationship of Cain and Abel.

So it is that the book of Genesis ends as it began – in sibling rivalry.

A notorious highway robber turned celebrated third-century sage, Rabbi Resh Lakish, suggests there are two concepts of the past at work here. The first is what happened – the history, the events, and in the case of Joseph and his brothers…the violence. This would be the throwing Joseph in the pit, the selling of him into slavery, the lying to Jacob about his death. That is something we cannot change suggests Lakish.

The second concept of the past is significance, the meaning, of what happened. That is something we can change.[ii]

Here we might see in our passage the forgiveness of Joseph towards his brothers.

It is on this second concept that the power of words makes a transformative difference.

Joseph has just heard that his father is alive and that he loves Joseph and mourns his loss… something that Joseph did not think was true. These words are the words that turn Joseph’s heart. And, he then reveals himself.

It is out of Joseph’s mouth that we hear how God has changed the violence of his brother’s actions into a means of their family’s salvation.

He then encourages them to let go of their guilt, to claim their deliverance, to hear his forgiveness, and to come and be reconciled and live with him in Egypt in the land of Goshen. Joseph’s words have power, and they transform the actions of the past. Just as God’s Word has power to heal and mend, forgive and give mercy…so too Joseph’s words.

Our modern societal narrative, not unlike Greek and Roman myths, encourage brothers and sisters to consume one another. They make no improvement upon Cain and Abel but instead reward the victor for his violent sacrifice of the other.

Instead, our scripture reveals that human words do in fact, as God’s, have the power to mend and restore. Joseph’s final words at the end of Genesis redeem all that has transpired.

The narrative of God’s work in the life of Joseph and his brothers, in reversing the legacy sibling rivalry, reveals nothing less than the power of the living word present from the time of creation.

In Joseph’s actions we see the one who loves his enemies, the one who loves those who hate, who blesses the ones who curses, who gives abundantly of his own to those who took everything from him. He does not condemn but instead forgives. He does not judge and exclude but instead uplifts and restores into community and relationship that which was broken.

We see then that Jesus’ own invitation to love our enemies is nothing less than the continued work of restoration of God’s garden social imaginary (God’s kingdom); which from the foundation of the world wore the scar of brother against brother, and sister against sister.

Moreover, that as Rabbi Lakish says, what we see in the end of Genesis is not merely the power of words but the power of the living God’s words and actions in those of Joseph, his brothers, and his father – Jacob. Here Lakish suggests, we see the history of events transformed into the story of God and God’s people.

The scripture here then is not merely a story about brothers, nor a history of a people, nor a moral example of how to live in community. Instead it is all these things and more.

It reveals the very nature of God, not by (as George Lindbeck suggests) creating an epistemological tale about God’s nature but by showing God’s interaction with the characters of God’s narrative.[iii]

If we see this story as merely a story about a people, or an Old Testament pericope to be examined in context, we miss the fact that it is an essential part of reveling the very nature of God’s reconciling action… A reconciling action which seeks the restoration of what was lost in a field when one brother killed another out of jealousy, desire, perceived slight and shame…

Here in Jacob’s love for Joseph and the brothers, Joseph for Benjamin, and the brothers for each other…we see the revelation of God who wishes us to know of his love…and his invitation to embrace the power of words to create, mend, and heal.

With this in mind we receive Jesus’ invitation to be a different kind of person not as moral imperative but as an invitation to participate in God’s very story. To allow God’s being to be the power in the words and actions of our own lives. In Luke’s Gospel chapter 6, we are literally being invited to take our part as characters in God’s narrative unfolding.

And, to speak and act as Joseph did – with love, forgiveness, mercy, and generosity upon our lips.

This too is at the core of community, and God’s social imaginary, that in the face of scarcity (as in the lean years of Egypt) we like Joseph discover our need for another. And that in receiving the other we in turn participate in the very nature of the “gratuitus God”. (Something John Milbank points out in his reading of Paul’s letter to the Romans.) We are not a moral community who just happen to be Christian. No. We are more.[iv]

The power of the living word working in the story of Joseph transforms his dependence upon the state power he has earned and places him firmly rooted in confidence of God’s love – specifically familial and brotherly love – in this case.

The living word has power to mend and heal and create. It has power to reconcile. It has power to change history and to create new meaning. The living word has power, even in our time to overcome the sibling rivalry promulgated by powers, authorities, and political allegiances. The living word in our time has power to change the history of the past and present, and to create a wholly different future.





[i] Rabvbi Sacks http://rabbisacks.org/father-love-vayigash-5779/
[ii] Rabbi Jonathan Sacks Sacks http://rabbisacks.org/father-love-vayigash-5779/
[iii] George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine, 121.
[iv] John Milbank, The Word Made Strange, 231.



Excerpt from my new book in January 2020: Citizen


Jesus expresses his alternative narrative in works of healing and through engagement with the community and its leaders. He also creates a new community with different types of citizens. As if to live into what theologian and priest Sam Wells called “The Nazareth Manifesto,” Jesus cast a vision for this community. Jesus did not merely say nice things about the poor and feed them, he lived as a poor itinerant preacher dependent upon the hospitality of those who saw him as a homeless stranger.[i] The new community was imagined as one that was to be present in the lives of people. The Gospel was not simply an idea to be preached, but a life to be lived in and amongst people. The manifesto of Jesus offered a vision of life lived with the hungry, with the imprisoned, and with the lost and least. Christ as the incarnate one of God is himself living out this manifesto even as he offers it as kind of new Sinai revelation. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount articulates such a vision (Luke 6; Matt. 5). Jesus’ teaching from the mount is a rehearsal of God’s visit with God’s people in the wilderness.


Also...

Rabbi Sacks in the Ebor Lectures, delivered in 2011, reminds us that these ten words are a principled foundation for healthy society. He writes that there is a difference between a social and political contract and a covenant. The ten commandments are covenant words, not social and political contract words. Contracts outline the boundaries of “advantage” while these words establish a relationship of loyalty and precedence. The contract becomes a higher authority to which I am bound to settle any future disputes. The covenant rests upon the relationship of a higher authority that transforms all other relationships in my life. The nation state and its citizens are governed by a social contract. The covenant established in the ten commandments orients people to each other and to God at a deeper level than that.[ii]
The Christian citizen is a member of a higher society than their nation state. The commandments remind us that we are not mere Americans. We cannot simply be patriots. We are citizens of a higher kingdom. We relate to God in such a way that we are marked and the way we live in our particular society is transformed. I can be a dual citizen as long as I remember and return often to the character of my relationship rooted in God.
We are to be virtuous citizens of God’s kingdom not only on Sundays, not only within the walls of our homes; but also in the political and social spaces of our community. Global and national society only works if we have character enough to care for one another across the boundaries of states or beyond the scope of our individual rights. I may have the legal right to leave you out in the cold, but as a person in a covenant with God, I have a different responsibility. Society is judged by a people who live according to a higher rule, who live differently within its midst.
God, at Mount Sinai, with neighboring tribal powers and monarchial principalities all around, created a wilderness society that forms and reforms as it makes its way in the world. However, the creation of that first new wilderness society got off to a rocky start. After the revelation of the commandments in Exodus, God invited Moses back up the mountain. (Exodus 32:14) Moses was delayed in coming back down because he got lost with God for a while. He was gone for a very long time. In fact, some translations imply it was an excruciatingly long time. In the absence of leadership and their conduit to God, they made an idol. God got upset at their idolatry. Moses got angry and smashed the tablets with the Ten Commandments. Aaron offered a lame excuse and blamed the people, scapegoating them for his failure of judgment. I have always assumed that this story is about totems for idol worship, maybe because I was so affected by the Cecil B. DeMille movie The Ten Commandments. I assumed that the Israelites chose another god - the golden calf. After all, Aaron does say, “Here is your god!”
The eleventh-century Rabbi Abraham Ben Meir Ibn Ezra anticipated my confusion. He taught that the idol was not made to take God’s place, but Moses’. The idol was to be the means by which people could commune with God, in the absence of a leader. What we know is that everyone has access to God with or without a leader. Sometimes we get into trouble because we think very highly of ourselves. But in the case of the Israelites, their idolatry sprung from feeling very small in the shadow of Sinai.[iii] Rabbi Sacks puts it eloquently, “Every Jew is an equal citizen of the republic of faith because every Jew has access to its constitutional document, the Torah.[iv] In this moment, the golden calf moment, the people did not understand that God was personally in relationship with them. God brought them out of Egypt in order that they might be free and continue to be a blessed people and a blessing to the world around them. God did not need any go-betweens, not Moses and not golden calves. They were to be this kind of society together.
The story of the golden calf is about the human tendency to believe that human-made items can mediate our fear, anxiety, sense of lost-ness, despair, and hopelessness by settling our disputes and bring about right judgments. We hope golden calves will bring about right government and care for the poor and needy. Humans put their trust in just about every kind of political golden calf you can think of. The golden calf is a way of ditching our responsibility. We create institutions and governments to be our go-betweens. This moves our responsibility to the golden calf organization(s) and removes our responsibility for the outcomes. This is how we are able to say the government did this or that – as if we are not our government.
The laws and politics of America and of any nation are a golden calf. Humanity’s understanding of truth by means of reason, our best attempts to create just law, political parties, presidents, and even nations come and go. There will always be golden calves to believe in and put our trust in. The Christian citizen is called to a different kind of relational politics that suggest very different outcomes. While we are obligated to obey the laws of our society, Christian citizenship is really the only means to a different sort of world. Reliance on golden calves will not be enough.
Golden calf organizations always function by means of a social contract,[v] which serve as the foundation for a network of formal and informal laws, statutes, constitutions, and treaties. These forms of social contracts help to protect, build commerce, enable travel, and order life when large groups of people live together. Most people talk about the need for social virtues in each of these types of contracted nation-states in order to bring about the very best societies possible.[vi] When we discuss Christian citizenship within the sphere of the nation, we are speaking primarily about a different  posture towards the social contractual relationships of the wider community. I want to be clear here. Our Christian belief and practice should have a real impact on how we conduct ourselves as Americans. Our covenanted relationship as Christian citizens impacts our contractual relationship(s) with the state and the informal relationships with our fellow citizens and neighbors.
The difference between Christian and nonchristian ways of being American ought to come down to compassion. Compassion is a fundamental virtue,  rooted throughout the scripture and especially in the Old Testament as hesed.[vii] As Christian citizens in a covenant relationship with God, we receive compassion from God, and we are to have compassion and live compassionate lives with kin, strangers, and neighbors alike. This is not a contract. For the Christian citizen compassion is a governing virtue of life lived by citizens in God’s reign.[viii] All relationships are read through a cruciform lens. The passion of Christ is compassion incarnated and enacted for all people.
Our work of covenanted compassion is entangled with another word with this other word emunah or faithfulness. For the Christian citizen the work of governing is about living out a commitment to relationships with others. Our faithfulness or emunah propels compassion forward, and gives all of our public relations a quality of familial faithfulness. Familial faithfulness is the second governing virtue of Christian citizenship. Rabbi Sacks describes it as an “internalized sense of identity, kinship, loyalty, obligation, responsibility, and reciprocity.”[ix] The sole purpose of government is to make us into a society that works. The Christian citizen has a greater vocation. The Christian citizen understands this tradition of familial faithfulness as a unity and relational obligation between kin, neighbor, and stranger. It has a universal quality to it. The Christian citizen is drawn into compassionate relationships outside of the natural and even governed boundaries because the compassion of Christ unites all people family, friends, neighbors and strangers into one faithful familial relationship.  
We as Christians are baptized into the reign of God, and we are made citizens by Christ’s work. Christ is really doing what God has been doing all along, making us God’s people. We are unified by a God who desires relationship with us, and we are people who believe God makes a covenant with us. The scripture is filled with these covenants. All of them are really of one kind in which God invites us to be a community of blessing to the world rooted in both hesed and emunah – in both compassion and faithfulness.
To fully grasp the meaning of the commandments given to Moses in order to actualize God’s garden social imaginary we must hold together the active words of compassion and faithfulness as we engage the other ten words. As we speak about Christian citizenship in the reign of God, we are speaking about covenant, compassion, and faithfulness to our kin, the neighbor, and the stranger.  



[i] The Rev. Sam Wells is the first person I know of who used the term “Nazareth Manifesto” in his essay by the same name. Wells offers that Jesus did not simply offer a word of release for the captives and food for the poor, Jesus seeks to be with the people in their hunger and imprisonment. Sam Wells, “Nazareth Manifesto,” Vagt Lecture: The Nazareth Manifesto, April 27, 2008, https://web.duke.edu/kenanethics/NazarethManifesto_SamWells.pdf.
[ii] Sacks wrote, “A contract is about advantage, a covenant is about loyalty… A contract is about interests, a covenant is about identity, about belonging to something bigger than me. From a contract, I gain, but from a covenant, I am transformed. I am no longer the person I once was, but am part of something larger than I once was. Thus, a social contract creates a State, but a covenant creates society." Jonathan Sacks, "Biblical Insights into the Good Society (Ebor Lecture 2011)," Rabbi Sacks, October 02, 2013, accessed July 29, 2018, http://rabbisacks.org/biblical-insights-into-the-good-society-ebor-lecture-2012/.
[iii] I discovered this interpretation in an article by Rabbi Josh Gerstein, who also quoted Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik, one of the great twentieth-century Jewish thinkers, who wrote:
They felt that they themselves did not have access to the Almighty. Only somebody of great charisma and ability could have access to him. The people sinned because they were perplexed. Moses has been gone for a long time. . . . They did not understand that, while Moses was the greatest of all prophets and the greatest of all men, every Jew has access to God. . . . Sometimes it is a sense of one’s greatness that causes sin; sometimes it is a sense of one’s smallness. It is possible that the story of the golden calf actually is a reference to a dispute between the later northern and southern kingdoms. See 1 Kings 12:28–30. More than revealing that Israel has one God, the story might reveal that Israel has one place of worship and one kingdom vs a divided one. The theology here is good even if it is a historic controversy in narrative form. See Josh Gerstein, “Revisiting the Sin of the Golden Calf,” Algemeiner.com, March 16, 2017, https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/03/16/revisiting-the-sin-of-the-golden-calf/. See also Joseph B. Soltoveitchik’s Vision and Leadership (Brooklyn, NY: KTAV Publishing House, 2012) 131.
[iv] Jonathan Sacks, Radical Then, Radical Now: On Being Jewish (Bloomsbury, 2013) 129.
[v] Drawing on the work of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks in his book The Politics of Hope, we understand that there are always two ideas floating around when we speak about citizenship in the wider community (town, city, nation, globally).
[vi] Jonathan Sacks, The Politics of Hope (London: Vintage, 2000), 64.
[vii] Sacks, Hope, 63.
[viii] Daniel Elazar, a leading political scientist and specialist in the study of federalism, political culture, and the Jewish political tradition, writes that such a life “expresses the idea that people can freely create communities and polities, peoples and publics, and civil society itself through such morally grounded and sustained compacts (whether religious or otherwise in impetus), establishing thereby enduring partnerships.” Daniel Judah. Elazar, People and Polity: The Organizational Dynamics of World Jewry (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1989), 19.
[ix] Sacks, Hope, 63-64.