Category Archives: Various

Galatians 3: 23-29 & 4: 1-7 – All One in Christ Jesus

1 Reply

Most biblical scholars agree that the author of the Letter to the Galatians was very probably St. Paul. The main arguments in favour of the authenticity of Galatians include its style and themes, which are common to the core letters of the Pauline corpus. Back in the 1930s, George S. Duncan described its authenticity as “unquestioned. In every line it betrays its origin as a genuine letter of Paul.” [3]

Some scholars “have cast doubts upon its authorship due to stylistic and vocabulary discrepancies with other letters uncontestedly attributed to Paul. These disparities have caused speculations that someone other than Paul may have composed it, yet most biblical scholars uphold Paul as its true author due to strong autobiographical elements in its content and thematic consistency with other Pauline works as evidence of Paul’s authentic authorship of Ephesians.” [4]

It seems reasonable for us to ascribe the authorship of the letter to St. Paul. Although ultimately this is not critical. What matters most of all is the text that we have received.

Paul constructs an argument in Galatians which seems to culminate in the idea that a new covenant, which is built on the foundations of earlier understandings of God’s relationship with his people, has now arrived. A covenant in which we are all included in God’s kingdom by faith through God’s grace alone.

Galatians 3:23 to 4:7 sits at the culmination of this letter.

A couple of things to note:

A. ‘Children’ or ‘Heirs’.

In ancient Rome ‘heirs’ were named in a will. Other children were not named. Heirs received everything from the bequest – both debts and benefits. “In the case of intestacy, Roman inheritance law had no concept of primogeniture and treated male and female children equally. However, in most cases intestacy was avoided by means of a will. Roman law recognised very broad freedom of testation, but wills had to strictly follow correct formulae and phrases in order to be valid. The will had to name an heir. In addition to this, it could name a legal guardian (tutor) for underage children, manumit slaves, and leave legacies to third parties. Over time a separate system of ‘fideicommissa’ (‘trusts’), which allowed greater flexibility, developed alongside the system of wills.” [5]

If a man died intestate, “property went first to ‘sui heredes’ (‘his own heirs’), who were any children of the deceased that had remained under his ‘patria potestas, (‘paternal power’) until his death. [6: p200] There was no assumption of ‘primogeniture’ – all children, male and female, received an equal share of the estate. [6: p201] If there were no children, then agnate relatives in the male line would inherit (i.e. other children of the deceased’s father, paternal grandfather, and so on). [6: p200] If there were none of these, then the ‘Twelve Tables’ [6: p199][7: p505] provided for the property to be inherited by the wider gens, but as the social role of the gens declined after the Early Republican period, this ceased to occur.[6: p200] There was no concept that an intestate property might pass to the state. [6: p200] Children of the deceased who had been emancipated before the deceased’s death or who had passed into the ‘potestas’ of another (through certain kinds of marriage or through adoption by another) were excluded from the succession, as were relatives in the female line (i.e. relatives of the deceased’s mother), and the deceased’s spouse.” [6: p200-201][7: p505]

Most Roman inheritances were, however, not intestate. “Instead, they were governed by a will (‘testamentum’). [7: p500] Some Roman writers speak of producing a will as a duty (‘officium’). [6: p201] Henry Maine in 1861 characterised the Roman approach as a ‘horror of intestacy.’ [6: p201][7: p499] Only a ‘pater familias: (male head of household) could make a will that disposed of a whole estate. [7: p502] But any Roman citizen who had reached the age of majority could make a will for property that they possessed in their own right. Women could make wills through a process of fictional sale (coemptio), until the reign of Hadrian, when they were given the ability to make a will through their tutor (legal guardian). [6: p202][7: p502] Non-Romans (peregrini) and people with intellectual disabilities could not make wills under Roman law. [7: p502] Exiles were not allowed to make wills either and this ban was retrospective; being sent into exile voided any will that the exile had already made. [7: p502] … The will had to name an heir. [6: p202] In addition to this, it could name a legal guardian (tutor) for underage children, manumit slaves, and leave legacies to third parties.” [6: p204]

Failure to name an heir could render a will void. [6: p204] An heir did not have to be a natural child of the deceased. An adopted heir was acceptable. This was often the practice in higher-ranking household as couples were often infertile.

An heir inherited both the deceased’s debts and his possessions. Being a child did not guarantee being an heir.

In verse 26 of Galatians chapter 3, the NIV and NRSV choose to translate a Greek word which means ‘sons’ as ‘children’. A word which carried great weight in the ancient world, ‘the son and heir’, the one who receives everything, is replaced in the NIV and NRSV by one which is about us all being ‘children’. In modern thinking, being one of many children of the father does confer status. But the word ‘children’ fails to carry the great sense of particularity intended by the author of the epistle. The status of ‘son and heir’ was more significant than being a ‘child’. In our thinking about this passage we must give weight to this distinction. Paul intends us to understand that we all (female and male) have the same status as the ‘son and heir’.

The distinction in ancient Rome between ‘son and heir’ and ‘child’ will also have been important to those reading the passage in many eras of civilisation and the history of the church. Particularly so, once the concept of primogeniture  became established in the medieval world. A concept which kept land and estates whole as they were passed from father to eldest son. The eldest son was ‘the heir’, the other children, while usually loved, had a demonstrably secondary status.

Paul intends us to understand that we are all (female and male) co-heirs with Christ, we have the same status, the same entitlements. We have been chosen as ‘heirs’. We are more than ‘children’. In verse 29, Paul uses the word κληρονόμοι (klēronomoi) ‘heirs’ emphasising the point that ‘son’ is different from ‘child’.

Our status ‘in Christ’ is that of heirs to the promise, not just children.

B. Verse 28 – ‘Or’ and ‘And’

In the context that we are all inheritors of everything God has to offer, it may be worth us noting what Paul writes in verse 28. There is a small but perhaps significant change from ‘or’ (οὐδὲ) to ‘and’ (καὶ) in Galatians 3:28. The Greek reads like this:

οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυπάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. [1]

The direct translation is shown in interlinear form below:

οὐκ                     ἔνι.        Ἰουδαῖος   οὐδὲ Ἕλλην,   οὐκ           ἔνι      δοῦλος οὐδὲ

Not/neither    there is     Jew        or    Greek not/neither there is    slave     or

ἐλεύθερος,          οὐκ           ἔνι         ἄρσεν  καὶ     θῆλυ       πάντες γὰρ

    free          not/neither    there is   male  and   female       all       for

ὑμεῖς    εἷς   ἐστε   ἐν  Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

  you    one    are     in   Christ   Jesus.

The direct translation does not read easily in English. As is usual, this means that the translators have had to decide how best to make the text readable in English. Almost inevitably they have chosen to give greater continuity in their translations. The variety of different translations can be found here. [2]

Many of the translators choose not to recognise the change from ‘or’ (οὐδὲ) to ‘and’ (καὶ). I guess the question must be whether or not Paul meant the change to be significant. Many of the translators think not, and in doing so they prevent most modern readers having the opportunity to engage with the possibility that the difference is significant. Effectively, the translators narrow down the possible interpretation of the text in favour of their own interpretation.

But is that difference significant? Perhaps it is sufficient for us to read that there is no distinction in Christ, that we are all one in Christ. Whether we are Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, there is no distinction between us. We are one in Christ, all of us ‘heirs’ of the promise, much more than just children. If that were the case, I would happily go on to argue that these pairings are intended to demonstrate the breadth of God’s inclusive love for everyone.

But, that single καὶ (and) may add to the argument. Two couplets are ‘neither/nor’ but for one couplet Paul choses to use καὶ, why? … This part of our passage, (i.e. οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ), seems to allude to Genesis 1:27 (ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς, in the Septuagint) where God first creates a being, Adam, seemingly both male and female, if verse 27 of Genesis chapter 1 is taken literally.

Daniel W. Roberts comments that “Galatians 3:28 is a rare case of a direct quote going relatively unnoticed by scholarship, which is then followed by a one-word allusion to further solidify Paul’s claims concerning unity.” [8: p1] “Paul in Galatians 3:27–28 quotes Genesis 1:27, … this purposeful quotation of Gen 1:27 is meant to couple with an allusion to Genesis 2:24 to articulate further the unity found in Christ.” [8:p3][9]

Roberts goes on to argue for the unity which comes from marriage and which mirrors the unity between Christ and his Church. But there are other interpretations which include feminist, intersex, or queer, etc. perspectives.

If there is a significance to the use of the word καὶ, and there may not be, but if there is, it must delineate a difference between the male/female couplet and the Jew/Greek and slave/free couplets. In Christ there is no longer Jew or Gentile, no longer slave or free, no longer male and female. It must, as Roberts suggests, refer to something else. Particularly, probably, the passage in Genesis.

Are the first two couplets a case of ‘either/or’ while the third is a case of ‘both/and’? Is ‘male and female’ just, for Paul, one category rather than two categories? Just one thing? Perhaps he sees us as being included in God’s blessings because we are human rather than because we are male or female? Perhaps gender/sex is insignificant? I am not sure where this leads us, but perhaps it places our disputes about what it is to be a male or a female in a wider context. Perhaps it is about freedom to be who God has made us to be, rather than having to conform to the either/or of the other categories in Galatians 3: 28. Paul sums this all up with the fact that, whatever he means earlier in the verse, we are all one in Christ Jesus.

References

  1. Galatians 3:28 in Greek, via https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203%3A28&version=SBLGNT, accessed on 23rd February 2025.
  2. https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Galatians%203%3A28, accessed on 23rd February 2025.
  3. George S. Duncan; The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians; Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1934, p xviii.
  4. https://www.ministryvoice.com/who-wrote-galatians, accessed on 23rd February 2025.
  5. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_law_in_ancient_Rome, accessed on 26th February 2025.
  6. David Johnston; Succession; in David Johnston, (ed.); The Cambridge Companion to Roman Law; Cambridge University Press, 2015, p199–212.
  7. Eva Jakab; Inheritance; in Paul J. du Plessis (ed.); The Oxford handbook of Roman law and society; Oxford University Press, 2016, p498–510.
  8. Daniel W. Roberts; Male and Female in Galatians 3:28: A Short Biblical Theology of Unity; in Southeastern Theological Review 13.1 (Spring 2022), p1–23; via https://www.sebts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/STRIssue13.1_BenMerkle.pdf , accessed on 26th February 2025.
  9. Roberts comments that Richard Hays’s study is especially significant for the study of Paul’s more subtle uses of the OT, what he calls echoes and allusions. This specific example, not discussed by Hays, arguably passes all seven of his tests for Pauline echoes. (Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul; Yale University Press, New Haven, p29–32.)

What You See is Not What You Are Going to Get! (Luke 5:1-11)

Leave a reply

What do the images below have in common?

What do a tadpole, a caterpillar, eggs and a hyacinth bulb have in common? …..

Ultimately – something like, … What you can see now is not what you are going to get. … A tadpole will become a frog, toad or perhaps a newt. An egg will become a bird or a reptile. These eggs if they had been incubated would have become chickens.

A caterpillar might become either a butterfly or a moth, and a hyacinth bulb will become a beautiful flower.

And our final image – a book cover for the story of the Ugly Duckling, a young chick ostracised for being different but who becomes a beautiful swan.

What you see is not what you are going to get!

How do these things change? Either by metamorphosis or by growth they become what they were always meant to be. In each case, the change does not just occur by magic. The potential is already there inside of them.

In Luke 5: 1-11, Simon Peter was someone with a great deal of potential.

From our Gospel reading, we know that Simon Peter was a Fisherman. Other stories in the Bible help us to get to know Simon Peter a little better. As we read the Gospel and later stories in the Acts of the Apostles we get to know Simon Peter relatively well. He was a typical country fisherman. He lived a hard life, with a hand-to-mouth existence. He was hot-tempered and impetuous, he often made mistakes. You might say that ‘he wore his heart on his sleeve’, and you might describe him as a ‘rough diamond’. He was not one to suffer fools gladly. He spoke his mind even when doing so got him a rebuke.

He challenged Jesus when Jesus talked about his death. ‘Lord, you cannot be serious, nothing like that will happen to you.’ And Jesus rebukes him; ‘Get behind me Satan.’

We know that, at least once, Simon Peter allowed circumstances to overwhelm him to the point where he denied Jesus three times.

But that is not all that we know about Simon Peter. … We know that he met Jesus and that something in this person Jesus changes Simon Peter for ever. … It didn’t all happen in an instant, but it started to happen in the Gospel story that we read today. It began to happen as Simon Peter listened to Jesus speak while sitting in his boat, it began to happen when he saw one of Jesus miracles.

Both Jesus’ words and what Jesus did pointed to him being someone very special. In the presence of this special person, Simon Peter couldn’t ignore his own weaknesses and failings. Simon Peter felt small and useless and wanted these feelings to go away. So he kneels in front of Jesus and asks Jesus to go away: ‘Jesus, depart from me because I am a sinful man’.

But Jesus does not do what Simon Peter asks. Jesus takes Simon Peter by the hand and lifts him up off his knees, and he says, ‘Simon Peter, I have a job for you.’ … I can see the potential in you, I can see who you will become. Peter I want you to be my fisherman now – only you’ll be catching not fish but women and men to be my followers.

And we know how the story ends – this Ugly Duckling of a man becomes a Swan – he becomes one of Jesus most faithful followers and eventually becomes the leader of the church.

Simon Peter’s story speaks to our hearts. … Many of us can find something of ourselves in him. … We make mistakes, we ‘put our foot in it’, we can be impetuous we hold negative feelings in our hearts and occasionally they surface to damage our friendships and relationships. We too can find ourselves failing to stand up for what is right or to stand up for our friends. We, like Simon Peter, are only human.

But you know, the same potential for change that Jesus saw in Simon Peter, is there in each of us. Jesus can and does take me, he can take you, and he can transform us. We no longer need to feel that we are no good – just like Simon Peter we can admit to God our weakness and our failings and then God takes us as we are, lifts us up off our knees, and makes something special. We become a better version of ourselves and our God given potential can be fulfilled.

We no longer need to feel like the Ugly Ducking or the Caterpillar, for God in Jesus sees the Swan and the Butterfly that we really are – and as we give ourselves to God – he draws out all the good that is in us.

Mark 10: 46-52 (Jeremiah 31: 7-9 and Hebrews 7: 23-28) – Sunday 27th October 2024

Leave a reply

What is the most important thing in your life? …. The children? The grandkids? The football team? The husband? The wife? The bingo? Bowling? Work?

What is the most important thing in your life?

What’s so important that you put it above everything else?

We have been reading though Mark’s Gospel for most of the year. We know by now what Jesus has been saying about himself and God’s kingdom. He has spoken of his own death, he has talked of God’s kingdom as a place of radically different values. And while all that has been happening, various people around Jesus have been making it very clear where their priorities lie.

Two Sundays ago, if we read the set Gospel in the lectionary, we would have read of a rich young man whose riches were the most important thing in his life. He was unable to give them up to follow Jesus.

Last Sunday, the lectionary pointed us to the verses immediately preceding today’s Gospel reading. We read of James and John asking for special privileges – wanting to sit at Jesus’ right and left hand when Jesus came in his glory. They were interested primarily in power, wealth and influence.

Previously, in the Gospel, the disciples had been caught arguing like little boys in the school playground about who was the greatest among them and Jesus had to bring a child into their midst to help them see what greatness was really all about.

These are all stories about people fixated on riches, wealth and power, rather than on following Jesus. And at the end of all this, Mark chooses to tell us the story of Bartimaeus.

Here too is someone who is really focussed on what he wants, someone who will not let anything get in his way, not his disability, not the jibes of the crowd, not the scorn of the disciples. Nothing. … ‘All want my sight’, says Bartimaeus when Jesus asks him what he wants. He believes that Jesus can give him his sight. He might not really understand who Jesus is, he only sees him as Son of David, not Son of God. But he is desperate and determined, he believes.

Jesus sees Bartimaeus’ faith and heals him. And Bartimaeus follows Jesus.

Perhaps when you go home you might like to read through Mark Chapter 10. Or borrow a bible from church and have a read together over coffee this morning. … Mark is being very clever in his Gospel.

People believed then, and still believe now, that wealth is a blessing from God – surely the Rich Young Man was blessed, surely wealth was no barrier to being a follower of Jesus. … But Jesus makes it clear that his wealth did stand in the way between him and the possibility of knowing God.

James and John, and the other disciples had been with Jesus for 3 years. Surely, by now, they would have understood just a little bit of what Jesus ministry was about. Hadn’t he talked with them repeatedly about suffering and death. But no, they’ve failed to catch on, and they make fools of themselves.

The privilege of wealth, the desire for preference and the privilege of being a companion of Jesus. Are both are compared by Mark with a blind man.

People in Jesus day saw sickness as a consequence of Sin. When you looked at a blind beggar – your first question would be, ‘What has he or his parents done wrong, that he is here begging like this?’ … We still make similar assumptions. How many times, when you’ve been going through hard times have you said something like, ‘What have I done to deserve this?’ … We still think in terms of consequences.

It is the person regarded by society as the sinner and the outcast, the blind man, who gets his priorities right.

The Rich Man walks away saddened, Bartimaeus is healed and follows Jesus on the Way. The disciples bicker as they surround Jesus, they even try to prevent Bartimaeus from reaching Jesus. Bartimaeus, even with his limited understanding of Jesus, knows that Jesus is the answer to his problems. He’s not interested in bickering, he pursues Jesus tenaciously, and then follows him enthusiastically.

Mark is making a very significant point … that those we see as outsiders, those on the margin of society, those who seem to be outside of the community of faith, those whom we might even feel tempted to condemn. They may just have something to teach us about faith and about an appropriate focus for our lives.

It would be so easy for us to lose our focus, to get so bound up, like the disciples, in the politics or the business of being Church, that we no longer focus on following Jesus. It would be so easy for us, like the rich man, to let other things become more important than our relationship with Jesus. And before we know it our faith will have ceased to be about love for God and will have become no more than meaningless ritual.

At times we need the Bartimaeus, the outsider who discovers for themselves the love of God, that new church member who cannot stop talking about what God has done for them, perhaps even a person whose morals, or lifestyle, or position in society that we abhor.

At times we need the outsider, the newcomer to remind us of the reality of our faith, the depth of God’s love for us, to challenge us about where our priorities lie.

What is most important to you? What’s most important to me?

Bartimaeus reminds us that focussed, committed pursuit of our faith, ‘following Jesus on the way’, has be our highest priority.

Prophets in Israel in the 8th Century BCE

Leave a reply

Introduction

It had been many years since Yahweh had spoken in a new way to the people of lsrael People continued to look back with an element of nostalgia to those early days. Yahweh’s involvement with Israel seemed to have been so immediate at that time. He had chosen lsrael from among the nations bringing them miraculously out of Egypt. They were his elect people and their history was one of salvation.

Yahweh had been involved in more recent times through chosen kings and different prophete, but it wasn’t quite the same as in the days when he dealt with the whole people of Israel

In the 8th century BCE, suddenly prophets of a somewhat different nature burst upon the stage of history. These prophets had something new to say. No longer were they essential parts of the establishment, nor purely thorns in the side of wayward monarchs. These prophets announced that Yahweh was going to be involved with his people again and in a big way!

This essay draws together some of the common characteristics of those 8th century prophets and highlights some of the features that make each prophet distinctive. The prophets Amos and Hosea spoke to the northern kingdom and lsaiah and Micah to the southern. It is difficult to place lsaiah’s sayings into a chronological framework with certainty. Isaiah chapters 1 to 39 are assumed to belong to the 8th century.

What did the Prophets have in Common?

The prophets were not so much visionaries and mystics as God’s messengers; not so much poets as speakers; not theologians; not social reformers or radicals but conservative, calling lsrael back to the old ways, not seers predicting the future so much as those who announced divine intervention in history, not preachers of repentance, because such calls to repentance were rare and they had no real programme for reform or change (Tucker, p165-170).

It is important when considering the prophets’ message to remember that the material we have received is generally in the form of relatively short speeches intended for specific audiences. We are, therefore, looking for basic underlying themes rather than systematic theology. Nevertheless it is clear that the prophets call Israel and Judah back to the old ways – they have strong words of indictment for their contemporaries. They announce something new – the Day of Yahweh. They re-emphasise Israel’s status as God’s chosen people and talk in new ways of God’s salvation.

1. Words of Indictment

It seems that the two nations of Israel and Judah have gradually left behind their erstwhile reliance on Yahweh. The Mosaic traditions have almost been forgotten. The northern kingdom has established its own patterns of worship, representing Yahweh with golden images of calves at Bethel and Dan, their two main places of worship (1 Kings 12:26-30). The worship of the Canaanite Baalim and Asherah had become a normal part of the worship of Israel (1 Kings 16:32-33). The southern kingdom has replaced the Mosaic tradition with temple worship and kings in the line of David – developments which are seen in the Old Testament to be part of God’s plan. Judah has, however, allowed its worship to become legalistic and gradually idols have begun to be important.

There has been a window in world history between the zeniths of two large civilisations. It has been possible for a number of the smaller nations to have periods of significance. David and Solomon ruled over a united Israel at the zenith of its power in the late 11th, and for much of the 10th, century. First the northern kingdom under Omri and later Syria had periods of strength. Prior to, and during, the 8th century both of the two Israelite kingdoms have seen an increase in their influence in Palestine and its surroundings. Jeroboam II had recaptured

Damascus and Hamath for Israel (2 Kings 14:28) Amaziah deflated Edom (2 Kings 14:7), his son Uzziah/Azariah captured Philistia and subjugated the whole region down to the borders of Egypt (2 Chronicles 26:6-15). In the early 8th century Israel and Judah are riding the crest of a wave.

The prophets speak into this situation of complacency and arrogance in commercial and social life, in politics and in worship (Wolff, p22-24)

a) Commercial and Social Life – the evidence from the prophets is quite clear. Oppression is rife and social injustice is the norm (Amos 2:6-7; 3:10; 4:1; 5:11; 8:4), false testimony in encouraged by corrupt judges (Isaiah 5:23; Amos 5:7,10,12; Micah 3:9-11), the rich live in luxury at the expense of the poor (Amos 4:1; 5:11; 6:4-6; Micah 3:2) and wealth is only in the hands of a few (Isaiah 5:8-12; Amos 3:9-10; Micah 2:1-2), cheating in business predominates (Hosea 12:7; Amos 8:4-6; Micah 6:11), conceit and complacency are common (Isaiah 3:16-23; 32:9-11; Аmos 6:1; 9:10). The two nations are corrupt and overly self-confident.

b) Politics – Amos focuses specifically on the internal life of the northern kingdom and its corrupt life and leadership. Micah similarly, riles against the unjust leaders of the southern kingdom (Micah 3:1-4). The other prophets have strong words to say about lsrael’s and Judah’s relationships with surrounding nations; external alliances are condemned because they reflect a turning away from reliance on Yahweh (Isaiah 31:1-3; Hosea 5:13; 12:1-2; 14:1-4). Both kingdoms make expedient political alliances without consulting Yahweh. The prophets proclaim Yahweh’s anger at internal injustice and unnecessary external alliances

c) Worship – Amos seems to suggest that the northern kingdom had exalted their king and their idols above Yahweh (Amos 5:26; 8:14). He talks of worship at Bethel and Gilgal as pious acts of which the people love to boast (Amos 4:4-5) and brings Yahweh’s condemnation on this worship (Amos 5:21-24) Amos also highlights that this not just a problem in Israel. Judah is just as guilty (Amos 2:4). Isaiah echoes the words of Amos in his condemnation of Judah (Isaiah 1:10-17). Hosea rebukes Israel’s priests for flagrantly abandoning true worship of Yahweh and introducing prostitution and idol worship (Hoses 4:7-14) Micah has words for the false prophets (Micah 3:5-7) and he suggests that the temple worship in Jerusalem is no better than that in the high places in israel (Micah 1:5).

The prophets proclaimed that worship of Yahweh was false because of on-going social injustice, and that it was corrupted by the influence of the worship of surrounding cultures.

2. The Day of Yahweh

There are two themes relating to the future. The first is the announcement of the Day of Yahweh. The second is the sense of a future salvation. We will first consider ‘the Day of Yahweh’.

Gerhard von Rad says that the new feature in the preaching of these prophets “was the message that Yahweh was summoning larael before his judgement seat, and that he had in fact already pronounced sentence upon her” (G. von Rad, p147). This theme is something completely new. Amos 8:2 explicitly states that “the time is now ripe for my people lsrael; I will spare them no longer“, (see also: Amos 5:2; 9:1-4). There are a number of references in the 8th century prophets to this phenomenon. The popular perception was of a Day when Yahweh would majestically reverse all of the misfortunes experienced by the lsraelites. The prophets will have nothing of this. It will be a day of devastation for Israel and Judah, a reversal of all of their hopes. It will be a day of darkness rather than light (Amos 5:18-20), a day when the proud will be humbled (Isaiah 2:9-11). Even when the Day of Yahweh is focused away from Israel, it is the whole world that will be punished (Isaiah 13:9-13, 34:2).

The Day of Yahweh is the end for Israel. Hans Walter Wolff describes this as the end of *salvation-election-history” (Wolff; p20) and he comments that Yahweh is to be seen as advancing against Israel (Isaiah 28:21-22), those who had been given the land of Israel will be deported (Amos 2:10-16, 7:11,17), the elect will be judged (Amos 3:2); the ‘exodus’ people will have no greater standing than the rest of the nations (Amos 9:7); the covenant relationship will end (Hosea 1:9); and Jerusalem will be destroyed (Micah 3:12).

Yahweh has never before stated so explicitly that he will destroy Israel and Judah. Some of the references quoted above have a strong sense of finality. However, this is not the whole story.

3. A New Concept of Salvation

For 8th century Israelites the idea of salvation was a glorious one, but one associated with their history. God had saved them from Egypt.

Wolff refers to the Day of Yahweh as a turning point (Wolff, p20). This is a clear element in the books of the 8th century prophets. There is some doubt as to whether this theme is original to these prophets or an editorial addition to reinterpret the prophets for a later period. This is particularly so in the case of Micah.

If, however, we take the books as they have been passed on to us the theme is strong – the end is only another beginning! Wolff highlights passages where the prophets speak of compassion after judgement (Amos 5:14-15; 9:11-15), the possibility that Israel will come to repentance (Hosea 2:19-23; 3:5) following God’s initiative (Hosea 2:14-18); the purification that will result from punishment (Isaiah 1:21-26); the final destruction of Assyria which will allow a change in the fortunes of the Israelites (Isaiah 10:5-25).

Micah perhaps contains the most positive statements regarding the long term future of Jerusalem (Micah 4:1-13). The destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the inhabitants are seen as the means by which Yahweh will rescue and redeem his people (Micah 4:10).

Salvation was, however, never seen as a spiritual  in New Testament terms. It was about return to Israel (Isaiah 10:21; Amos 9:14; Micah 2.:12), about freedom and peace (Micah 4:3), about pre-eminence in the world (Micah 4:1,13), about having shelter (Amos 9:14) and fod to eat (Amos 9:13, Micah 4:4), and about control over one’s own destiny (Tucker, p165-166).

We have considered a number of issues which show that the books of the 8th century prophets are united around Yahweh’s message of indictment, judgement and mercy. Gerhard von Rad sees this “common conviction” as “so novel and revolutionary when compared with their inherited beliefs that it makes [their] differences, considerable as they are, seem almost trivial and peripheral” (G von Rad, p146). Each prophet, however, has a distinctive message which we must now consider.

The Prophets

1. Amos

Amos was from Judah but called by Yahweh to speak in Israel. It seems that his ministry was short but sufficiently intrusive to warrant action by the priests in Bethel in an attempt to have him deported (Amos 7:10-15). The language of the book is harsh and direct. He has no concern for his own status in the community of the northern kingdom. He emphasises social injustice as the most significant reason that Yahweh is about to punish Israel (e.g. Amos 2:6-8, 5:7-13) and he calls strongly for justice and righteousness. “But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never- failing stream” (Amos 5:24). The book contains little that is positive, except in the last five verses which suddenly talk of restoration. It is questionable whether these five verses were part of Amos’s original message.

2. Hosea

Hosea was a northerner and his message was for his own people. His ministry was born out of his own failed relationships. It is at times difficult to judge whether he was a godly saint, a poor judge of character or a bad husband. Nevertheless, Yahweh uses Hosea’s relationships as a graphic picture for Israel of its own spiritual state. This is a much softer message of judgement, if that is possible. Yahweh’s grace, mercy and forgiveness (Hosea 2:14-23; 3:1-5; 6:6) are emphasised as much as Israel’s spiritual prostitution (Hosea 2:2-13; 4:7-19). Yahweh’s desire is for a relationship of love with his people (Hosea 2:19; 6:6; 10:12; 11:1-11; 12:6) but he does not force this on them, he stays with them calling them back to himself. Yahweh’s judgement is rigorously pronounced (Нова 2:9-13; 5:1-14; 9:1-3,15-17) yet he aches to have Israel back, and his judgement is designed (Hosea 5:15) to make them pursue him!

3. Isaiah

The first 39 chapters of Isaiah come from the 8th or early 7th centuries although much of the material may have been adjusted by later editors to make it relevant to the times of Josiah, the exile, and the post-exilic period. Isaiah’s language is vigorous and dramatic (e.g. Isaiah 14:11-17) and his poetry is excellent.

The book of Isaiah is best understood from the perspective of Isaiah’s vision in chapter 6 and the apparent summary of the message in the first chapter. The strongest theme in the book is ‘the holy one of Israel’ which occurs 26 times in the book as a whole. A sense of Yahweh’s holiness propelled Isaiah into his ministry (Isaiah 6:1-8) which he understood would involve him repeating Yahweh’s call of repentance to an uninterested and unheeding people over a long period of time (Isaiah 6:9-13).

Isaiah’s message is that persistent rebellion makes no sense (Isaiah 1:2-9), that Judah’s worship has no meaning and is abhorrent to Yahweh because of the social injustice endemic in the nation (Isaiah 1:10-17); that Yahweh wants to reason with Judah before punishment is applied (Isaiah 1:18-20); that punishment will come with the intent of purging the nation (Isaiah 1:21-25) so that Jerusalem can again be called “a City of Righteousness, the Faithful City” (Isaiah 1:26). Thermes of Yahweh’s justice and righteousness, and of judgement intermingle with visions of hope for the future (e.g. Isaiah 32).

4. Micah

Micah is a strange mixture of doom and hope. This is usually explained by suggesting that later editors felt the need to tone down Micah’s devastating message of judgement to make it more palatable for their readers. On one hand there is a message of condemnation for exploitation, absence of justice and corrupt religious practice (Micah 1:10-16; 2:1-5,8-9; 3:8-12; 5:9-14; 6:9-15) for which punishment will be severe. On the other hand there are passages which seem to target punishment on other nations, and look more for changes in attitude in Judah with worship of Yahweh becoming central again (Micah 2:12-13; 4:1-2,5-13; 5:7-8; 7:8-20).

It is possible that these two elements represent two different theological streams, that of the ‘exodus’ and that of ‘city’. Micah seems to hold in very uneasy tension the need for justice, liberation, equality and simplicity with the need for institution, structure and stability. While both of these are necessary in a balanced society it is almost impossible to reconcile their differing demands. Micah cannot. The value of his message probably depends on the reader recognising his/her own innate perspective and endeavouring to read and apply the text with rigorous honesty.

Conclusion

We have surveyed the work of four 8th century prophets and seen that, although their communication was primarily verbal, there is a striking series of common convictions underlying their individual messages. We have also illustrated their distinctive features. Yahweh took a number of very different people and used them to pass on a clear, new message to his people; one which they were unable, or unwilling, to hear. Their inclusion in our Old Testament illustrates the recognition given to these prophets in later generations. They stand as ‘the word of Yahweh’ not just because of their importance to their original hearers but because they have continued to have something significant to say in each subsequent generation.

We must let Yahweh have the last word

“… so is my word that goes out from my mouth:

It will not return to me empty,

but will accomplish what I desire

and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”

(Isaiah 55:11)

Bibliography

  1. Gene M. Tucker, “The Role of the Prophets and the Role of the Church”; in David L. Petersen (ed.); “Prophecy in Israel”; SPCK, London, 1987.
  2. Hans Walter Wolff, “Prophecy from the Eighth Through the Fifth Century”; in James Luther Mays and Paul J. Achtemeier, “Interpreting the Prophets”; Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1987.
  3. Gerhard von Rad; “The Message of the Prophets”; SCM, London, 1968.
  4. David F. Hinson; “History of Israel”; SPCK, London, 1990.
  5. David F. Hinson; “The Books of the Old Testament”; SPCK, London, 1992.

Ruth: “Carry On Gleaning” – A Comedy with a Deeper Meaning?

Leave a reply

This article was originally written as an essay as part of Old Testament Studies for my MA.

Scholars have suggested a number of motives behind the writing of Ruth. [1] Whatever the merits of the different proposals, it seems to me that Ruth was just as likely to have been written as a bawdy adult comedy/pantomime. It could perhaps be subtitled ‘Carry On Gleaning’. It might have been the ‘Up Pompeii’ of ancient Israel. However, within the clever plot [2] and camouflaged by sexual innuendo, there are robust and intriguing characters that the reader can identify with. [3]

It was ‘Harvest Festival’ (‘Pentecost’ or the ‘Feast of Weeks’) [4] everyone had been drinking – the whole village was ‘happy’. Dinner had been followed by all the usual speeches. Old jokes had been told (and retold), particularly those about sheaves, grain and seed – full of the usual sexual innuendo. [5] Village dignitaries had pompously promised gifts to the poor, some had made commitments that they would rue, come the morning.

It was now time for the reading of Ruth; or rather, for the second, ‘real’ reading. Ruth was read in the morning in the Synagogue a beautiful story of loyalty, conversion, hope [6] and of the ancestry of King David, or so it always seemed in the morning light. In the Synagogue the village elders had pontificated about the importance of caring for the stranger, [7] about the possibility of redemption for the worst of aliens (even Moabites); [8] and about duty and honour They talked of Boaz, fulfilling his responsibilities; [9] of Naomi the godly mother-in-law (struggling to accept the consequences of her husband’s folly); [10] of a beautiful, modest, dutiful, Moabite daughter-in-law. [11] Characters full of loyalty and faithfulness. [12] A sickly-sweet story – the ‘Mills and Boon’ of the five scrolls. [13]

I don’t think Ruth was written for the Synagogue. Those pious interpreters probably missed the point. [14] It was written for the evening, for the party! It was, first and foremost (and still is), a ripping good yam! A really well written ‘comedy’, [15] full of innuendo, with real 3-D but ambiguous characters. Characters that you could easily read yourself into. You couldn’t but be drawn into the plot – especially if you’d had a little too much to drink!

The evening reading of Ruth was the highlight of the Festival!

So, how did people engage with the main characters?

Naomi

Naomi enters the story through pain, suffering and complaint, [16] but her experience and response are full of ambiguity. Was she sinned against or sinning, party to the decision to go to Moab, or just following her husband, being punished for her husband’s sin, or the innocent victim? [17] Does she enter the story engulfed in bitterness trapped in her own prejudices, and remain so? Or is she, perhaps a model for working through grief? The narrative does not answer these questions directly – this is part of its strength. [18] No one is excluded, ancient/modem readers are invited into the plot, invited to see themselves in Naomi. Her experience and expression of suffering parallel theirs – they can feel their own pain worked out in Naomi’s character.

Naomi decides to return to Bethlehem. [79]

It would be natural also to question Yahweh’s role? Given prevailing theology, early audiences would see ’cause and effect Elimelech flirted with ‘Moabite foreigners’ and reaped the reward. [19] It seemed that his sons did too ‘sins of the fathers’ and all that! [20] How many generations would reap the rewards of Elimelech’s sin? None! Unless that is, Naomi, or one of her daughters-in-law, remarried! If that happened, would the curse remain?

Given all the possibilities, what is going on in Naomi’s mind? Perhaps this:

“Elimelech’s decision was wrong. I knew that right from the start. Moab, of all places! Whatever possessed him?”

“It’s an evil place’, I warned him. ‘Yahweh warned us against Moabites’, [21] I said. And I was right!”

“Losing Elimelech left me all alone in Moab! I couldn’t face the shame of returning to Bethlehem. I just had my two boys – I focused on them, but couldn’t really forgive Elimelech. I worked hard to secure wives for the boys and began to hope for grandchildren.”

“In ten years there were no children. How I wished that I’d chosen better wives. I’d decided to suggest that the boys should look for second wives, when both boys upped and died – Yahweh’s curse, [22] I’m sure.”

“Elimelech, what have you done? I am all alone, I have no one! I’m left with two barren Moabite women to care for! What is to become of me? I’d be better off dead.”

Naomi identifies herself with the dead rather than the living. [23] Her depression is self-reinforcing. She wants nothing more to do with these Moabite women they embody her distress. [24] The dialogue in Ruth 1.8-17 might suggest concern for her daughters-in-law [25] but actually depicts her as bitter and self-focused. Her subsequent silence on the journey speaks volumes. [26] Her ‘poem’ in Ruth 1:20-21 is melodramatic. [27] Her failure to mention Ruth reflects ambivalence toward Ruth: [28] “This Moabite woman is an embarrassment, she highlights my folly and disgrace, I do not want her here.” Yet Ruth is all Naomi has.

Naorm remains self-focused throughout the story, showing no concern for Ruth as she leaves for the fields to glean. [29] Apparently concerned for Ruth’s future happiness, she is, however, Gontent to risk Ruth’s honour at night at the threshing floor. [30] Her silence once she has her grandchild and the women extol Ruth’s virtue, is telling: “Calamity from the god of the patriarchy she has been quick to proclaim. Generosity from a wealthy man she is quick to praise. Grace from a foreign woman is perhaps beyond her comprehension. Little wonder that to the message, ‘your daughter-in-law who loves you is better than seven sons’, her response is silence“. [31]

Boaz

If Naomi is bitter and twisted, Boaz is ‘a pillar of the community’. [32] He greets everyone according to the proper religious formulae; [33] he speaks in a ponderous/pompous form of Hebrew; [34] his initial dealings with Ruth are very correct. [35] The listeners will recognise, in him, the leading men in their village – very proper, yet in the context of this yarn, possible to ridicule.

His pomposity is the appropriate foil for his growing infatuation with Ruth. [36] We cannot be sure what about Ruth attracts him – possibly beauty. [37] However, a slightly plump, country-girl Ruth might best fit a ‘Carry-On’ story. If this was a play we would see an exaggerated turning of the head as Boaz first notices Ruth, we might hear a quiet exclamation of delight before he draws himself together to ask his overseer, “Whose maiden is this?” [38] Boaz behaves properly toward Ruth, but the audience know that he’s hooked.

Boaz and Ruth’s conversations are laced with double meaning. He talks of ‘staying close’ [39] She talks of him ‘noticing’ [40] her, a foreigner. [41] He covers his confusion with a wordy statement but can’t quite avoid sexual overtones. [42] Her reply gives room for that little giggle, or raised eyebrow, that might accompany one meaning of ‘your maidservant’. [43] Boaz is hooked, his mild generosity of the morning gives way to profligacy [44] everyone listening ‘knows’ [45] where things are leading.

The tension, for the audience, is enhanced by the reputation of Moabite women. [46] Boaz is entering dangerous territory – what will happen to him?

We next meet Boaz at night on the threshing floor, in a slightly pickled state, asleep after celebrating the end of the harvest. Any Israelite would know that the fields were a dangerous place for an eligible man to sleep at night. Boaz’s alarm when woken was understandable – the Lilith, the demon maiden, could have been about, searching for a mate! [47]

The audience is prepared for sexual encounter by the activities of Naomi and Ruth. They are clearly preparing for marriage. [48] Sexual innuendo continues with references to ‘feet’ [49] and ‘lying down’. [50] Boaz wakes, perhaps because of the cold on his legs, in his alarm he is undone/uncovered in more ways than one. Perhaps Ruth wakes him and he sees her uncovered before him. [51] Which is it? The audience is left to wonder.

Which of these two images gives the better impression of what was happening that night in the field? [77]
Boaz and Ruth. [78]

What does happen between Boaz and Ruth that night? We can’t be sure. We’re not sure that Boaz is really sure what happened. [52] – there was plenty of drink around that evening! We can, however, be sure that the ambiguity is intended by the author. [53] The audience cannot but see the similarities with other biblical stories. [54] They’re left to read almost anything into the situation.

Ruth seems to offer herself to him – Boaz recognises the sexual connotation in her reference to his cloak, but also that she is challenging him to fulfil his earlier blessing. [55] The audience is torn between titillation, at the possibility of sexual gratification, and jeering at pompous Boaz for being trapped by two women, [56] one a Moabite woman!

The latter part of the story has Boaz cunningly manoeuvring the anonymous relative [57] into a corner from which there is no retreat. He manages to buy [58] a Moabite woman without losing the respect of the community – he is the honourable redeemer. [59] In the story he’s definitely the winner. [60] The audience is left considering the motives of the village elders who sit at the gate of their village. What is happening as they make decisions? Is everything just as it appears, or are these ‘pompous’, ostensibly magnanimous/gracious, elders only really working for their own ends? Could that also be true of the elders teaching in the Synagogue?

Ruth

Ruth, a Moabite! The audience titters when she first enters the narrative. Moabites, and particularly their women are not good news. [61] The first possible signs of Ruth and Orpah’s loyalty [62] surprise them. Orpah’s decision to leave Naomi draws the audience’s boos: “We told you so, Moabites are no good! Go on Ruth, leave too!”

They hear her profession of loyalty [63] – its difficult to believe – they can’t credit good motives to Ruth: “She’s after something. Let’s wait and see!” Ruth’s loyalty to Naomi [64] continues to perplex the audience throughout the story. They are surprised at her willingness to glean in the field, but quickly they suspect that she will seduce the young Israelite men. Eventually they see her tangled with Boaz in a complicated romance, perhaps this is where she will show her true Moabite colours. The sly comparison with the Lilith tickles their fancy, [65] and they certainly have some fun at Boaz and Ruth’s expense.

But which side should they take? They have to decide. Prejudice says Ruth is evil, to be avonded Yet Rath shows faithfulness and loyalty, to Naomi and Boaz. [66] Yes, the author has allowed some titillation, but did anything wrong actually happen at the threshing Door Re can they believe that a Moabite woman is good? Yet if they don’t what does that say at the ancestry of their great King, David?

What does Ruth herself feel? Her husband is dead. Hier mother-in-lapse doesn’t want to know her. Chances of another husband in Moab are low. Who would want to marry second-hand goods? Israelite second-hand goods at that? [67]

Are Ruth’s motives as pure as they first seem? She has little choice. She cannot bring herself to follow Orpah who walks out of the narrative, probably into poverty and spinsterhood. [68] Ruth knows she’s committed to Naomi, no matter how bitter the wild woman is. Loyalty is her only option and she goes for it.

The journey to Bethlehem is hard – Naomi ignores her. [69] The entry into Bethlehem, harder still – for everyone ignores her. [70] She is determined not to be defeated. It is harvest-time and she heads for the fields – she’s heard Naomi mumbling about Boaz. [71] and determines that she will find his area of the field, she’s surprised to find it at the first attempt. This will be her way of helping both herself and Naomi. Her encounter with Boaz goes well – she can see that he’s interested in her. He’s clearly a respected man a bit ponderous/pompous but widowed Moabite women in Israel cannot be too choosy, can they?

Her triumph is hard to hide when see returns home – she tells Naomi of her work in the field, holding the name of Boaz for the last final flourish of her statement [72] (incidentally, holding the audience’s interest – they know something Naomi doesn’t know). She plays a small word game with Naomi, about men/maid-servants [73] which gently reminds Naomi of her earlier lack of care for Ruth.

Seven weeks she works in Boaz’s fields – she becomes quite fond of the old blighter. She isn’t surprised when Naomi suggests that marriage should be pursued, she listens to the plan and works out her own variation of it. [74] The risk is great, Boaz may just use her. In the event she has him trapped, just as on the following day he would trap the anonymous relative.

Conclusion

This is a very clever story, one that draws the audience in through an excellent plot and bawdy humour. The characters and the message contained within the story are such that the original audience could not have been left unmoved or challenged. It really does rate as “a ‘good yam’, superbly written”. [75] We can see God’s providence at work – and that seems to be the point. The story asks whether we can really see God at work in the lives of ordinary people. [76] The answer it provides is ‘Yes!’.

Notes

  1. 1:p25ff; 2:p259; 7:p201.
  2. A well devised plot – intrigue draws us into each scene. A classic pattern of exposition/conflict/resolution (12:102ff). This “story has power to draw us in almost against our will” (11:p63f). Part of its allure is its honest embrace of pain (6:p25ff) see also note 15 below.
  3. The interaction of the narrator and characters (12:p68-71) and the quality/depth of the characters (19:p37-40; 20:p71ff) is what makes this story.
  4. 17:p78; 21:p12f
  5. 8:p126 (note 29).
  6. 5:p146-165; 7:p197; 20:p71ff
  7. cf. Exodus 23:9; Numbers p9:14.
  8. Ruth 1:16f: cf. 15:p37,42 – re: conversion.
  9. 17:p102.
  10. 15:p36f.
  11. 5:p148-161.
  12. Hesed, (חֶסֶד) Ruth 1:8 occurs frequently in the book, and carries the idea of covenant loyalty, cf. 5:p148; 7:p206; 21 p23.
  13. 21:p12 cf. 17:(whole book)
  14. Although they would receive Rabbinic support (cf. 5:p148-165, 15:p37-47)
  15. ‘Comedy’ is also the literary term for ‘the story of the happy ending’ (19:p82; cf. 20:p72) – Ruth fits this traditional pattern.
  16. 17.p98
  17. 7 p208; 8:p72; 10:p197; 15 p36f.
  18. Our response to narrative gaps affects our understanding of the story cf. 4 p12: 22:p20-25.
  19. 15:p36f
  20. cf. e.g., Exodus 20:5; 34:7.
  21. cf. Deuteronomy .23:3.
  22. Ruth 1:13: cf. 21:p27; Exodus 20:5; 34:7.
  23. 8:p70f cf. 1:p46.
  24. 15:p 34.
  25. 15:p35f
  26. Ruth 1:18, 8:p74.
  27. 15:p34f
  28. Ruth 1:19-22, 8:p74f.
  29. Ruth 2:2, 8:p76f
  30. Ruth 3:2-4, 15:p36.
  31. 8:p82; Ruth 4:14-16.
  32. ba’an (בעז) was one of the columns in the temple the name could mean ‘quickness/strength’ (1:p55), ‘powerful/potent’ (3:p51); he is introduced as a man of substance/worth/wealth (1:p56; 8:p83).
  33. Ruth 2:4, 10:p205
  34. Ruth 2:8-9,11-12; 15:p43.
  35. Ruth 2:8-9, 15:p43.
  36. 8:p85: 15:p44
  37. 5:p161-163
  38. Ruth 2:5 (RSV) – he is already thinking, ‘Who does she belong to?”
  39. Ruth 2:8, of. Ruth 1:14 – root (דָבֵק) – cleave – cf. Genesis 2:24; 34:3.
  40. Ruth 2:10 cf. 21:p51
  41. Ruth 2:10: Ruth is a נָכְרִיָה – a ‘temporary foreigner’ – emphasising her alienness (14:p147), or ‘one not recognised as part of the family (21:p51).
  42. Ruth 2:12: of. Ezekiel 16:8 – which is using sexual imagery.
  43. Ruth 2:13 – שִׁפְחַת – may be ‘concubine’, but Ruth 3:9 – אַמַתִי  – does mean ‘concubine’ (21:p53).
  44. Ruth 2:14-17, 21:p54
  45. Ruth 3:4 – ידע – there is double meaning when this word is used (7:p218).
  46. Numbers 25:1-5; cf. Genesis 19:31-38.
  47. 21:p76-80
  48. Ruth 3:3; cf. Ezek. 16:8-13.
  49. Ruth 3:4,7,14; בול  – feet/legs/genitals (7:p217; 9:p156,193, 18:p37f, 21:p70)
  50. Ruth 3:4,7,8,13,14 root שָׁכַב – ‘to lie with/down’ (7:p218; 18:p39).
  51. Ruth 3:4 – נליח – the Hebrew works both ways.
  52. 8:p87.
  53. 2:p272; 7:p217; 15:p46f
  54. Ruth 4:11f; Jacob/Leah/Rachel – Genesis 29; Judah/Tamar – Genesis 38 (3:p62ff, 8:p72f, 9:p104f).
  55. Ruth 3:9 cf. Ruth 2:12.
  56. 7:p212; 10:p207
  57. The Hebrew (בְּלֹנִי אַלְמני) – 7:p222f, 8:p91; 15:p45 and specifically p127-129
  58. Ruth 4:10: cf. 13:p140, note 140 – they would not question the ‘purchase’, just her Moabite status!
  59. 2:p275f, 15:p45f; 21:p107ff, 115ff, 136ff.
  60. 8:p91f
  61. Genesis 19:31-38, Numbers 25:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:3f, Judges 3:12-30, 1:p33; 8:p69f, 15:p38.
  62. Ruth 1:6,10.
  63. Ruth 1:16f
  64. 16:p97
  65. Ruth 3:8-9 cf. 21:p76-80.
  66. Hesed, (חֶסֶד)
  67. 8:p97f.
  68. 8:p97f.
  69. Ruth 1:18; 8:p74.
  70. Ruth 1:19-21.
  71. Ruth 2:1.
  72. Ruth 2:19.
  73. Ruth 2:21f; 8:p98f; 21:p58.
  74. Ruth 3:9 cf. Ruth 3:4; 8:p99ff; 17:p101f.
  75. 4:p9: quoting Goitein; Iyyunim ba-miqra; Yavneh, Tel Aviv, 1957; p49.
  76. 2:p280; 7:p197.
  77. https://emilysmucker.com/2020/04/27/five-actual-romantic-lessons-from-the-life-of-ruth, accessed on 14th October 2024.
  78. https://www.radstockwestfieldmethodists.co.uk/book-of-ruth-chapter-3-.php, accessed on 14th October 2024.
  79. https://www.bookbaker.com/ko/v/Genesis-A-Visual-Exploration-Ruth-and-Naomi/8a99ff0b-37ca-4dc0-8e51-09a03b1a14e3/13, accessed on 14th October 2024.

References

  1. David Atkinson; The Message of Ruth;, IVP, Leicester, 1983,
  2. A. Graeme Auld; Joshua, Judges and Ruth; St. Andrew Press, Edinburgh, 1984
  3. Mieke Bal; Heroism and Proper Names, or the Fruits of Analogy; in Atalaya Brenner ed.; A Feminist Companion to Ruth; Sheffield Academic Press and Ruth St. Andrew Press, Sheffield, 1993.
  4. Athalaya Brenner; Introduction; in Atalaya Brenner ed.; A Feminist Companion to Ruth; Sheffield Academic Press and Ruth St. Andrew Press, Sheffield, 1993.
  5. Leila Leah Bronner; A Thematic Approach to Ruth in Rabbinic Literature; in Athalaya Brenner ed.; A Feminist Companion to Ruth; Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1993.
  6. Walter Bruggemann; Old Testament Theology: in Patrick D. Miller ed., Fortress Press, Philadelphia. 1992.
  7. John Craghan, C.SS.R.; Esther, Judith, Tobit, Jonah, Ruth; Michael Glazier, Wilmington, Delaware, 1982.
  8. Danna Nolan Fewell & David M. Gunn; Compromising Redemption; Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1990.
  9. Danna Nolan Fewell & David M. Gunn; Gender, Power, and Promise; Abingdon Press, Nashville, Tennessee, 1993.
  10. John Goldingay; After Eating the Apricot; Paternoster, Carlisle, 1996.
  11. John Goldingay: Models for Scripture; Paternoster, Carlisle, 1987.
  12. David M. Gunn & Danna Nolan Fewell; Narrative in the Hebrew Bible; Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993.
  13. Paula S. Hiebert; Whence Shall Help Come to Me: The Biblical Widow; in Peggy L. Day (ed.); Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel; Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1989.
  14. Jonathan Magonet; A Rabbi’s Bible; SCM, London, 1991.
  15. Jonathan Magonet; Bible Lives; SCM, London, 1992.
  16. John H. Otwell; And Sarah Laughed; Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1977.
  17. Eugene H. Peterson; Five Smooth Stones for Pastoral Work; Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992
  18. Ilona Rashkow, Ruth: The Discourse of Power and the Power of Discourse; in Athalaya Brenner ed.; A Feminist Companion to Ruth; Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1993.
  19. Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible As Literature; Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1984.
  20. Leland Ryken; The Literature of the Bible; Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1974.
  21. Jack M. Sasson; Ruth; 2nd Ed., reprinted, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1995.
  22. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Book of Ruth; in Athalaya Brenner ed.; A Feminist Companion to Ruth; Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1993.

Mark 10: 2-16 – A Warm Welcome – St. Andrew, Ryton – 6th October 2024 (19th Sunday after Trinity)

Leave a reply

A series of clipart images are included in this article/sermon which I believe are free to download and royalty free. The first, at the head of this article is a picture of a welcome mat.


People place welcome mats outside the front door of their houses. Do you have one? ….. I think they carry a mixed message, something like this: “It is nice to see you but please do wipe your feet before you come into my house!”

It conveys a sense that visitors are welcome if they …..?

A true welcome is really about greeting someone in a warm and friendly way. A few pictures to illustrate what we do to welcome people into our homes. …..

What things do we do when someone comes to our house to make them feel welcome?

A Warm Drink
Something to Eat
A Comfortable Chair
A Warm Room
A Smile
A Invitation to Return

Pretty much naturally, when we do welcome someone into our home we offer a warm drink, some biscuits, a comfy chair, a warm room, a welcoming smile and an invitation to return.

But, has anyone ever come to your house who you don’t want to welcome in? … Sometimes we get people selling us stuff we don’t want, or someone we find it difficult to likecomes to the door. I remember letting a bathroom salesman into my house and then spending the whole time he was there wishing I hadn’t.

Or what above a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon missionary….. Perhaps we keep them standing on the doorstep rather than let them in.

A challenging question for clergy might be what constitutes a true welcome be for the awkward and abusive homeless person on the vicarage doorstep?

How do you feel when someone you don’t want around is on your doorstep? Perhaps you feel a bit aggressive and defensive, or maybe mean, awkward, uncomfortable or even guilty, as you turn them away?

It’s not always easy welcoming some people into our homes, our places of work, our schools, or even our churches – is it?

Towards the end of our Gospel reading today, we heard about some people who were not made to feel welcome by Jesus’ disciples.

Jesus was teaching and people were bringing little children to have Jesus touch them. The disciples criticized the parents and told them to stop bringing their children to Jesus. When Jesus heard what his disciples were saying, he was very upset. “Let the children come to me and don’t stop them!” Jesus said. “The Kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children. Anyone who doesn’t come like a little child will never enter.” And the Gospel tells us, that Jesus took the children in his arms and blessed them.

Jesus really knew how to make a child feel welcome. Perhaps you might be able to imagine how those children must have felt when Jesus took them up in his arms and blessed them? That image – that we often see in stained glass windows in churches – of Jesus with the children in his arms is one that should reminds us to make everyone feel welcome like Jesus did!

The kind of welcome we offer to others is critical. It says so much about us. When we welcome people into our homes or into our churches, we are sharing something of ourselves with them, and in doing so we make ourselves vulnerable. Because, at times, our guests can ride rough-shod over our hospitality.

The temptation is to respond like the disciples – to try to exclude those who don’t understand our ways of doing things – and there are plenty of churches that do just that. To come to the main service in the church that I grew up in, you were expected to have a letter of introduction from another similar church before you could be part of the worship!

Some churches refuse to have baptisms in their main services – because the wider baptism party may disrupt their quiet worship. Some churches refuse to even make their building available to the community – a great sadness when those churches are the only large indoor community space available.

In our Gospel, Jesus models a response of loving welcome – an acceptance of the mess and the noise that goes with children being around, but a true acknowledgement that they have so much to offer us. This is the response that we are called on the make in our churches, not only to children, but to all who need the love of our Saviour – open, loving, vulnerable welcome!

Back to our welcome mat and that gallery of welcome pictures. …

What does our figurative welcome mat say to those who cross the threshold of the church for the first time? Is our welcome warm, open and true? Or is it grudging and perhaps motivated by fear that we will have to be different, to change, if we truly welcome them?

Do we do our best to extend that welcome – perhaps with a warm drink, something to eat, comfortable seating, a warm space, a welcoming smile and a heartfelt invitation to come again?

A Warm Drink
Something to Eat
A Comfortable Chair
A Warm Room
A Smile
A Invitation to Return

What does our figurative welcome mat say to people? Wipe your feet, clean yourself up, sort yourself out and come in – or does it really say that people are welcome as they are?

The God we worship worship week after week offers an open, inclusive welcome to all. God includes everyone without exception and God calls on us to do the same.

Water into Wine – John 2:1-11

Leave a reply

Epiphany 3, 2024 – John 2:1-11

What’s your most embarrassing moment?

My worst in church was being called up to help with the chalice at Communion in my church in Didsbury in the early 1990s and tripping over the steps on the way up to the altar. I fell flat on my face in front of everyone and then found everyone sniggering as I gave them the cup. How did I feel? … I wished that the ground would open and swallow me up!

The bridegroom in John 2:1-11 was in just such an embarrassing predicament. This was supposed to be his special time. He & his new wife had been escorted through the streets with burning torches, lighting their way to their new home. They weren’t going away on a honeymoon, but would keep open house for an entire week for people to come along and celebrate the occasion. This was Jewish custom, and the celebrations and showing hospitality to guests were a sacred duty. And what has happened, but the wine has run out! Not because his guests have been over-indulging. Apparently, he’s just been to stingy – he’s not bought enough.

Perhaps he’d underestimated how much wine he’d need. Perhaps he didn’t have the money to buy enough wine, even the cheapest available, to meet his needs. But there was no room for excuses – it was his duty to pay for the celebration. Deeply embarrassed, perhaps red in the face, getting hot, wanting a hole to open up and swallow him, he waited for the complaints from his guests to roll in. Can you imagine his prayer, “Why does this always happen to me? … Please Lord don’t let anyone notice.”

clay-jars1-960x250

But one guest did notice. Mary saw and she told Jesus. And Jesus quietly set to work. He gets the servants to fill the six water pots with water, the water is turned into wine and the bridegroom’s embarrassment turns to amazement and joy. The equivalent of over 700 bottles of wine, the finest wine appears from nowhere. No longer does the bridegroom face shame and humiliation.

df9f283bbc3d8ec5423e2b207f122756

The reading concludes: “Jesus performed this first miracle…… there he revealed his glory
and his disciples believed in him.” Those who were with Jesus knew that this was an act of divine power – an act in which the personal situation of the bridegroom was transformed. This miracle revealed the nature of Jesus’ ministry: Jesus, the provider of joy, transforming sadness and embarrassment into experiences of gladness and rejoicing. Jesus, the one who can overcome our mistakes/failings, bringing good out of seeming disaster.

The good news of the Gospel is that this is what God is like. If Jesus transformed one situation, then God can transform the situations that we find ourselves in today.

Perhaps we’ve made mistakes – like the bridegroom without enough wine. We may look back over our lives, and think “if only I’d not done or said that.” There may be things that have happened in the last few days – we’ve done or said something we regret. These things can linger with us, leaving us feeling embarrassed, ashamed, and not knowing what to do.

Perhaps we are low in resources – like the bridegroom who couldn’t provide adequately for his guests? There are times when we feel spiritually dry, we struggle to pray, we wonder where God is. Or we feel physically weak, no energy to do what matters. Or emotionally drained, with no motivation to sustain relationships or get on with our work.

Perhaps life is full of sadness – like the bridegroom who sees his joyful day disappearing before his eyes. We see others around who are happy, but find it hard to be like them. We know that others think we should be smiling, but it’s not as easy as all that…..

Whether trivial or significant, God in Jesus is ready to transform these situations. He can, and does break into our lives. We think or feel that we are defined by the past, by our mistakes and failings. But God says, “No!” Just as Jesus transformed the bridegroom’s day from failure to joy, God can transform our lives bringing good out of the mess we see in our lives.

Not only is God ready to transform situations, he is even at work when we cannot ask him ourselves. The bridegroom wasn’t actually aware that Jesus was working to help him until the steward announced that there was more, and even better, wine on offer. It was someone else, Mary, who noticed the need, and asked Jesus to act. When we are unable to pray, or don’t know what to pray for – we don’t need to worry that we’ll be left helpless. God will act.

cana-bw

God can act unilaterally, but more often than not it is through others around us. Those who notice the way things are and do something. … Action isn’t always appropriate. When we see our friends or family members struggling – we can follow Mary’s example. We can talk quietly to Jesus, in the background, and we can have confidence that we have done the right thing. For we have given their situation to God. And God is able to work for good in any situation.

And when Jesus acts, when God acts, we may be amazed at what happens – the bridegroom didn’t just receive enough wine to get by on. He got good, fine wine – more than he needed, better than he needed. The generosity of God was overwhelming at the wedding in Cana. And when Jesus acts to transform our situations, our lives, we can expect this same generosity. However, with Jesus, it’s not about quick fixes that solve the problem for the moment. No, God’s work in our lives will often be quiet, often over the longer term. We may experience setbacks, but God will not give up.

We can experience transformation, and as Jesus works in our lives the glory of God will be revealed – just as it was at Cana. And we can be part of that transformation in the lives of others by taking the mess and muddle that we see to God, by asking God to break in a bring hope and transformation.

Lord Jesus, just as you transformed the situation of the bridegroom at Cana, may you work in our lives, transforming our embarrassments, our inadequacies, our sadnesses, our mistakes, into experiences of gladness and joy, to the glory of your name. Amen.

Matthew 18: 21-35 – How Many Times?

Leave a reply

The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant

A talk given on 17th September 2023 at St. Alkmund, Whitchurch.

If I were to ask for a show of hands this morning of those who have never wronged anyone. How might you respond?

Some might be ask themselves what right I have to ask a question like this. Is it, perhaps, the wearing of a dog collar that means I feel I can do so?

Some might think about what others around them might think if they put up their hand. … People here this morning probably know me too well. Although I know that I have never done anything too bad, I have certainly not broken any laws, they might remember that one time when I …………… What will they think of me?

Others might want to challenge my presuppositions behind asking the question. They might want to enter into a philosophical debate about my presumptions. … What might I mean by ‘wrong’? What might I mean by ‘never’? Do I mean ‘wrong’ in an absolute sense, measured against a set of laws? Or do I mean ‘wrong’ in a relative sense, in terms of the breakdown of relationships? Am I talking about ‘wrong’ in terms of personal moral responsibility, or of complicity in the actions, or failures to act, of my group, my family, my village, my class, my business, my society?

Ultimately, I guess, whether we readily admit our failings, or we only do so at our lowest ebb when self-doubt is strongest, very few of us would put our hands, and so today’s Gospel reading is for us, for you and for me. We all need or have needed someone’s forgiveness.

But our Gospel reading turns the question round the other way. It asks: What do you do when you have been wronged? What do we do when people hurt us or upset us? It talks about a need for us to forgive others.

There are many questions we could wrestle with this morning about ‘forgiveness’. But rather than embarking on a philosophical debate, let’s allow the Gospel story to speak. ……..

Just suppose, for a moment or two, that you have been hurt, maligned or mistreated by someone else.

Suppose (use fingers to count) someone lets you down, cheats on you, loses their temper with you, says some cruel and unkind things, steals from you, makes you look stupid, and breaks something of yours when you let them borrow it. … How do you respond? ……….

When Peter speaks to Jesus, he believes that he is setting a very high standard: “How often should I forgive someone? 7 times, Lord?” It seems as though Peter is saying: Seven times seems about the limit, fairly generous really. You might just as well give up on someone after that. Or perhaps, Peter is asking something like, “Am I being too generous, Lord, what do you think, perhaps after just 3/4 times?”

And Jesus response, I think, leaves Peter reeling – not seven times but seventy-seven times – or in some translations seventy times seven – 490 times. … “As often as is necessary,” is Jesus’ response. “Keep forgiving until you lose count completely!”

And Jesus then tells a story to help us understand that it is because we have been loved so much, forgiven so much ourselves by God, that we should forgive others.

Jesus’ story is about an employee or servant who has a wife and children and who has overspent on his company credit cards, someone who has maxed out. He has spent his boss’s money on himself and his family. He has stacked up a huge amount of debt with his boss.

The Boss calls for his servant and demands repayment of what is owed. The servant falls on his knees and begs to be given more time to pay. The master, the boss, feels sorry for his servant and lets him off the whole debt! Just like that!

The debt is cancelled. How does the servant feel? … I guess that, if you have struggled under the burden of significant debt, an unpayable mortgage, a large gambling debt, a payday loan which is escalating out of control. Then you will know something of the immense relief, the unbridled joy of the servant. …

Now that is just what the bible says God has done for you and for me. He has cancelled the debt we owe, he has forgiven what we have done wrong, and continues to do so, perhaps even things that only we and God know about! …. The meanness, the selfishness, the pride, the hypocrisy, the fibs, the tax evasion, the days ‘off-sick’ which weren’t, the snails and slugs we have thrown over the garden fence onto our neighbour’s property, our failure to recycle, the driving above the speed-limit on the motorway… you know, all those kinds of things, as well as what might be much bigger things ….. When we say sorry to God for these things he forgives us. The only question is whether we mean what we say when we say we are sorry, and, I guess, whether, ultimately, we are willing to make restitution to those we have harmed.

God has forgiven me and you more than we can imagine. It is just as though we owed God more than a million pounds (IOU a million) and he has cancelled the debt. The debt is gone, we have been set free of debt. (Tear up the I.O.U.). ……

So, back to the Gospel story, … here is this happy, free servant. He’s wandering back from the house of his master, his boss, to tell his family the good news. He’s over the moon, he’s delighted, it is wonderful. And he meets a fellow servant of his boss, his master. This fellow servant owes him a few quid.

And the same thing happens; this other servant falls on his knees and begs to be given more time to pay. But what does the first servant do? He grabs him by the neck, shakes him and has him thrown into prison until he can pay the debt.

What Jesus wants us to ask ourselves is this: Is it reasonable for the first servant to behave this way? Is it fair and right? What do we think?

Of course it isn’t. …

Yet forgiveness remains something we all find difficult – often impossible. …  Jesus is suggesting in this story that we will only begin to be able to forgive, if we can comprehend how much we ourselves are loved, how much we been forgiven.

Jesus says that it is when we know that we are loved without conditions, that we can begin to show that kind of love to others. 

The love God has for us is that kind of love.

Our regular Sunday services allow time for confession and for us to hear God=s word of forgiveness for us. We also join together in the Lord’s prayer: ‘forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us’. Weekly reminders of just how crucial forgiveness is.

It is only in the security and strength of God=s forgiving love for us, that we can be free to love and that we can begin to forgive others generously in return.

Yes, for their sake and for God=s sake … but actually also for our own sake. … For, finding a way to forgive, is essential for the sake of our own health and well-being. For when we hold onto grudges, it is as if we throw ourselves into debtors’ prison until the perceived debt has been paid. A failure, on my part, to forgive can destroy me. …. So, the last few words of our Gospel reading, as awful as they are, reflect no more than the natural consequence of the first servant’s failure to forgive. …

Rather than finishing on this negative note, let’s think forward to the central act of our service this morning. Let’s focus on the love shown to us in Christ. … On the forgiveness which is ours in Christ, no matter what we have done, no matter how guilty or ashamed we feel. And, as we prepare for our Communion, let’s allow ourselves once again, as we receive the elements of bread and wine, to sense the love of God suffusing our minds and hearts. This act of love which we re-member in our bodies, is an act of deeply healing, forgiving love from a God who thinks the world of each one of us. We are loved, forgiven, set free. Words are just not enough, but bread and wine, body and blood, warm our hearts and embrace us in God’s arms of mercy.

Luke 2:33-35 – Mary the Mother of Jesus – A Mothering Sunday (Mother’s Day) Reflection

3 Replies

And the child’s father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him.  Then Simeon blessed them and said to his mother Mary, “This child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed – and a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

Sunday 19th March 2023 – Luke 2:33-35

An updated reflection. ………….

On Mothering Sunday (Mother’s Day) we give thanks for those who Mother us, for those who today and in years gone by have given themselves to and for us. For those who have made sacrifices so that we might enjoy life. In many communities now, only to say thank you to Mums, is to ignore all those who care for us. In families across our land, grandparents, aunties, uncles, fathers, foster parents and social services carers provide motherly love and care to many children. This is a day when we celebrate all who have and do provide motherly care.

Our Gospel reminds us that loving and caring in this way is a sacrifice of self-giving. A vocation to which many of us are called. A vocation which not only means a daily grind of tiredness and worry, but one which often can involve experiencing the deepest of pain – sometimes because that care is rejected by those we love, sometimes because of the hurt done to those we love and care for.

Mary understood that pain. At the death of her Son, she bore in her body the pain of the cross – she felt the nails being hammered into the wrists of her son, she agonised as she watched him die the most painful of deaths. She had to release her child into God’s eternal care long before his time. And as those things happened I’m sure she will have felt a mixture of all the emotions a mother can feel – anger, guilt, shame, and deep aching loss. Like any mother, her grief was unbearable.

Mary also understood the joy of motherhood – she watched her precocious child grow to be a wonderful man. She felt the joy of being part of the making of this special son.

Mothers today face all of these emotions. Today we stand with them, pray for them and celebrate their self-giving love. We pledge ourselves again, for another year to work for the stability of family life, to help those who find the burden of caring too difficult.

As we look around our world today, we reflect on the tremendous burden born by mothers, grandparents and others, as they watch the healthy younger generation around our world dying for lack of drugs to treat those who are HIV positive; who see children dying for nothing other than the lack of clean water, or the cost of a mosquito net; as we watch families still struggling to come to terms with Coronavirus for lack of available, affordable vaccines.

We see the burden of care carried by so few for so many children, we see children struggling for lack of food, their carers working night and day to bring in only just enough for survival. We see schools and their staff carrying an increasing burden so as to keep our society working.

In other ways today, our celebration is mixed with sadness and mourning.

We are acutely aware of people important to us, whom we have lost and who we wish were still with us.

Our prayers also carry the weight of what we see each day on our televisions and what we know to be true for many around our world. We try, in our worship, to imagine the pain of mothers on both sides of the Ukraine conflict. We struggle to comprehend the depth of loss felt by all parents, but particularly by mothers, who have lived through the earthquakes in Syria and Turkey.

And we bring all this, the stuff of life in our world, the joy and the struggle, with us as we pray and as we come to Communion. In the midst of many conflicting, painful or joyful feelings, we give thanks for all that our mothers mean to us, all that our mothers have meant to us. And as we quietly remember Jesus’ sacrifice, we seek to understand the pain of those who are suffering for love throughout our world today.

John 17: A Pivotal Passage in Scripture, … and its implications for current debates in the Church

1 Reply

I have long felt that, in understanding God’s call on our lives, the pivotal passage in the New Testament of the Christian Bible is John 17.

I have discovered more recently, in early retirement, just how significant that chapter of the Bible is for me personally. In discussions around difficult issues I have found myself returning to Jesus’ prayer in John 17. The call for unity embodied in that prayer pulls at my heart strings and provokes a surprisingly strong emotional response. …

Professor David Ford seems to have a similar sense of the profound importance of that chapter to the overall message of John’s Gospel, and, as a consequence, to the whole New Testament story. He speaks of John 17 as the point at which John’s Gospel, “sounds its greatest depths, reaches its greatest heights, opens up its innermost secret of intimate mutual indwelling, and orients the desires of readers toward union with the ultimate desire of Jesus.” [1: p9]

If we are to take Jesus’ prayer in John 17 seriously, that ‘we will be one, as he and the Father are one’, we have to take our differences over many issues seriously, address them and, in the midst of our disagreement, then seek unity — that is the challenge of John 17.

In this respect, Loveday Alexander writes that: “We shall need (as Pilling frequently reminds us in the report about human sexuality, [2]) ‘a complex process of theological discernment, a process that begins with the discipline of listening, which requires the ability to move outside the limitations of our own experience to pay attention to what God is doing in the experience of others.’” [3: p48]

Let’s take this particular issue as an example of the challenge posed by the prayer of Jesus in John 17. Loveday Alexander was writing in 2014 about the ongoing debate within the Church of England over human sexuality. We are now, at the time of writing, in 2022, and that process of listening in relation to human sexuality has been going on in the Church of England over the past 8 years.

We are probably more aware of the issues, in this particular context, than we ever were, but as far as I can see, we are no closer to a way forward that will hold us all together in unity and that will satisfy, not only those with different views within the Church of England, but also those in the wider Anglican Communion.

Indeed, a number of us in the wider Anglican Communion still see the very process of listening to be too great a compromise. For some of us, Scripture is clear, the matter is determined by the text of Scripture and the traditional teaching of the church. There must be no equivocation over the issues involved. The firm belief of parts of the Anglican Communion is that the Church of England and a number of other provinces in the Anglican Communion need to repent and return to the tenets of Scripture. That view, held with great integrity and commitment, says that unity is just not possible while parts of the Communion are so manifestly in error.

Others of us cannot accept that position. For us, a careful study of Scripture and the cultures in which it was written and our own lived experience lead us to a very different conclusion. Many in this other part of our church family are just as resolute as those in the first group.

In reality, we are not united but divided, and it seems that we hold each other to account as responsible for that division.

And yet, in this particular context, we are not so very far apart. We see many of the of the possible perversions in all sexual relationships as sinful. We are not happy to condone engagement in physical sexual acts outside of committed, faithful, monogamous relationships. We strongly condemn abuse in all its forms whether inside or outside of a marriage and family life. We see no place for promiscuity, no place for selfishness. I hope we also have a strong commitment to mutuality in marriage and in relationships.

But, we do not agree on one key issue relating to who can participate in a committed, faithful, monogamous sexual relationship. And for so many of us, on whichever side of the argument we sit, this matter is essentially insurmountable, either because of our view of about what scripture says, or because of our essential identity as human beings. It seems as though neither side in the debate can see any grounds for hope and both seem to agree that this issue takes us beyond the remit of Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17.

As I have already said, that prayer in John 17 is, for me, a pivotal point in scripture. And it provides the context for Jesus’ later commission in John 20:21-22. “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit…”’ (John 20:21-22)

As we have noted, Professor David Ford (the author of a new (in 2022) commentary on St. John’s Gospel [1]) agrees with this assessment. He talks of Jesus’ prayer in John 17 being “the most profound and far-reaching chapter in the Bible” [4]. Jesus “prays (John 17:18) about what he later does in the pivotal verse John 20:21, and pours out his ultimate desire for all of us later believers: that we be united in love with each other and with him, ‘as’ he is united in love with his Father, and that this might overflow into the world God loves (John 17:20-26). It is a mission of inspired loving, for the sake of the whole world, including (since Jesus is the one through whom ‘all things came into being’ – John 1:3) the whole of creation.” [4]

“All through John’s Gospel readers have been prepared for the death of Jesus (beginning with John 1:29), and for the resurrection of Jesus (beginning with John 2:22), and for the giving of the Holy Spirit (beginning with John 1:33). Now, climactically [in John 20:21-22], the crucified and resurrected Jesus actually gives the Holy Spirit. The words that accompany this give all of us Christians our core vocation and mission. We are sent ‘as’ Jesus was sent.” [4]

“But,” says Ford, “the ‘as’ does not mean exact repetition. We are not in first century Palestine. His Spirit is breathed into us so that we can both learn from how he was sent and also improvise endlessly upon it. We are to be inspired in our learning together (the Holy Spirit guides us into ‘all the truth’ – John 16:13, so our learning is never to stop), in our loving like Jesus, and in our praying like Jesus (try praying the Lord’s Prayer in the light of John 17!).” [4]

In his commentary, Ford says that the thrust of John’s Gospel is towards “doing life-giving signs for all who are in need, daringly crossing deep divisions, seeking more and more truth, engaging critically and constructively with the civilization of which it is a part, prophetically challenging the pathologies of power, modeling servant leadership, and building communities of prayer, love, and friendship that serve God’s love for all people and all creation, seeking to be part of the fulfillment of the desire of Jesus in his final prayer.” [1: p11]

“The essentials,” he says, “are summed up in John 20:21-22. Jesus gives us the deep ‘peace’ of knowing we are utterly loved, at home abiding in the love at the heart of all reality; the deep purpose of being ‘sent’ to love as he was sent by his Father; and, amazingly, the ‘Holy Spirit’—breathed into us minute by minute as he lives in us, we live in him, and we are energised and inspired to learn, pray, love, and serve as never before.” [4]

One significant element of John’s gospel message is the way in which “it nurtures in readers a global horizon that can unite them with the desire of Jesus for an ultimate unity of all people and all creation in love and peace.” [1: p11]

This means, as we have already noted, that we are to be inspired in our learning together, in our loving like Jesus, and in our praying like Jesus. … Jesus prayer is pivotal to our corporate life as his Church.

As Professor David Ford says: we are to be inspired by Jesus’ prayer in John 17 which calls us to a unity with each other which reflects the unity of the Godhead. We are called to reflect in our relationships the “innermost secret of intimate mutual indwelling,” [1: p9] that characterises the relationship between the three members of the Trinity. Indeed, Ford entitles the chapter in his commentary which focusses on John 17, ‘The Summit of Love’.

Our missionary calling as disciples of Jesus is a call, primarily, to unity. This is to be one of our ultimate values, it is to define us as followers of Jesus. It is to be at the very core of who we are. For me, this increasingly means an emotional, almost visceral, commitment to unity.

Whatever our differences in theology and practice, whatever different denominations we might form, we are called first and foremost to a loving unity which surmounts all barriers. We are to be ‘like Jesus’ who prayed, with what was close to his dying breath, that we would be one ‘as he and the Father are one’.

“John’s gospel is indeed irrefutable in its clear, concise and transparent yearning for authentic Christlike discipleship today and always, to exemplify human love one for another, unconditionally, non-selectively, non-judgementally – just as Jesus did, so also should we do similarly.” [5: p24]

While commenting on John 1:29, Ford offers us a definition of sin: “This also is a pointer to the meaning of the sin of the world. [John 1:29] The basic sin indicated in the Gospel of John is lack of faith/trust/belief, inevitably involving lack of love. The desire/will of God is for a love inseparable from trust. The ultimate desire of Jesus, expressed above all in his climactic prayer in John 17, is for people to be united in trust and love with God and one another through him, a unity in which the whole of creation is embraced. This is the “summit of love,” the joy, the “eternal life,” the peace, for which people are created and into which they are invited, and whatever prevents or distorts or falsifies or opposes this is sin.” [1: p48-49]

Essentially, nothing pertaining to our faith should be allowed to take us outside of the scope of Jesus’ prayer for unity. Historically, the Church has allowed many things to take priority over that prayer. In doing so, each time, it places itself outside of Jesus’ desire for it.

At the moment, I find it nigh impossible to envisage the reconciliation of people holding divergent views on human sexuality within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. I am grateful that others are ultimately responsible as the guardians of our unity and our faithfulness to the canon of scripture. My fervent prayer is that the Spirit will continue to lead us into all truth and that we will be able to fully accept our differences and fully embrace the unity for which Jesus prayed.

References

  1. Professor David Ford; The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary; Baker, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2021.
  2. The Pilling Report was published by Church House publishing on 28/11/2013. Its full title is The Report of the House of Bishops Working Group on Human Sexuality.
  3. Revd Canon Professor Loveday Alexander; Homosexuality and the Bible: Reflections of a Biblical Scholar; in Grace and Disagreement: Shared Conversations on Scripture, Mission and Human Sexuality; The Archbishops’ Council, 2014, p24-51.
  4. Professor David Ford; Improvising in the Spirit: Lessons from the Gospel of John; Re-Source Wednesday Lecture; Re-Source Autumn Newsletter 2022, Scargill House, p10-11; https://www.resource-arm.net/files/uploads/Autumn%202022%20Newsletter%20(Online).pdf, accessed on 4th November 2022.
  5. Jenny Plane Te Paa; Theology and the Politics of Exclusion: An Indigenous Woman’s Perspective; in Terry Brown .ed; Other Voices, Other Worlds; Church Publishing, New York, 2006, p15ff.