Lectionary Notes

Salome, by Aubrey Beardsley

Proper 15, Year B
12 July 2009,
The Sixth Sunday after Pentecost

The Collect

The opening of this Collect is founded on Augustine, Confessiones I.1: “You move us to delight in praising You; for You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in You.”

The First Reading: 2 Samuel 6.1-5, 12b-19
The Ark is brought to Jerusalem.

This reading continues the highlights of the story of David that are followed in Year B. When King David had captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and established it as his capital city, he brought there the Ark of the covenant to make it the religious centre of the nation.

OF THE ARK

The ark was a portable wooden chest which was kept at the heart of the tabernacle as the symbol of the presence of the Lord. In Exodus 25.10-22 are the orders for its construction. While Israel journeyed in the wilderness the Ark was carried ahead (Numbers 10.33-36). In this passage are preseved fragments of an ancient Song of the Ark;

And whenever the ark set out, Moses said, Arise, O LORD, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee.”And when it rested he said, “Return O LORD. to the ten thousands and thousands of Israel. (See Psalm 68.1)

The ark, then, was the most revered embled of the Hebrew religion. The box contained the ‘testimony’ [Ex 25.16, 21], apparently the stones of the law from Mt Sinai. According to the Letter to the Hebrews [9.4], it also held the urn containing manna and Aaron’s rod that budded (but see Exodus 16.31-34).
The Hebrews believed that the presence of the ark brought them victory in battle (particularly memorable is the fall of Jericho, Josh. 6.6-20). Nonethless, in the time of the Judges, the ark was captured by the Philistines. They returned it, for it seemed to bring them ill-luck, but after that they ark remained at Kiriath-Jearim, whence David brought it to Jerusalem.
In the temple of Solomon the ark was placed in the Holy of Holies. It was presumably lost at the fall of Jerusalem, and Jeremiah prophesied that it would no more be remembered or missed (Jeremiah 3.16-17).
6.2. Baale-judah is either an error or another name for Kiritah-jearim (1 Sam 7.1, 1 Chron 13.6)
6.3: a new cart. Rabbinic commentators noted that it was not right to move the ark this way: “He erred in a matter that even school children know: “Because the service of the holy things belonged unto them, they shall bear them upon their shoulders” (Num. 7:9).”
The next passage (6.6-12a). is omitted from the lectionary These verses tell that when he touched the ark to steady oit when the oxen stumbled, Uzzah the son of Abinadab was struck down by the Lord and died. In Numbers 4.15 it is laid down that none but priests should touch the ark. In verse 8, David is said to be angry about the death of Uzzah, but in verse 9 he is said to be afraid. These verses are apparently from different strands of tradition: the NOAB suggests that 8 is the work of a later editor, as suggested by “to this day”.
NOAB comments: “Uzzah was apparently trying to steady the ark as the oxen stumbled. At this point Uzzah died Most ancient peoples attributed disaster to the anger of a deity.
The ark was left at the home of Obed-edom the Gittite, where it brought prosperity. David thereupon decided to bring it into the city (verse 12)
6.13-15 describe the jubilant procession of the ark into the city.
6.16. On the marriage of David to Michal the daughter of Saul, see 1 Sam 18.20-27, 2 sam 3.15-16. Though promised to David, she had married a certain Paltiel, and when David became king he took her from her husband. This may be a reason she “despised” him: another is that she had no child by him. Or she may simply have thought the was behaving in an undignified way: see further, 6.20-23.
Note that Michal “looked out of the window, and compare the descriptions of Sisera’s mother (Judges 5.28-30) and Jezebel (2 Kings 9.30-32). The narrative force of the window in these passages was pointed out by Max Beerbohm in his essay “Fenestralia” (1944).
6.13, 17. Note that David offers sacrifice though he is not a priest, and compare 1 Sam 13.10-13.
6.18-19: The celebration concludes with a great feast. The meaning of verse 19 is a little unclear. The Judaica Press version gives: “And he distributed to all the people, to the whole multitude of Israel, both to men and women, to each individual a loaf of bread, and a portion of meat, and a barrel of wine. And all the people departed, every one to his home.”

Psalm 24

is described in NOAB as “a liturgy on entering the sanctuary, probably used in connection with a procession of the ark. Several commentaries apply verses 7-10 to the ark as symbolizing the presence ofthe3 God of Israel. There is a parody of this psalm in T. H. White’s The Once and Future King (Collins, 1958), pp. 128-9. White’s point is about the use of religion in the service of the state, especially in time of war. This is a question which would probably never entered the mind of David or the priests of his time, but creeps into one’s mind while it ponders the passages appointed this Sunday.

The Epistle: Ephesians 1.3-14

Since we will be reading from Ephesians for the rest of the summer, it would be helpful to provide briefly some general comments on this Epistle.
Ephesus was the capital of the Roman province of Asia, which was the western part of what we now know as Turkey. For St Paul’s time at Ephesus see Acts 19.
The traditional belief that this Epistle was addressed to the Church at Ephesus it is more likely that it was a sort of circular letter to the churches in .Asia and Phrygia. The reasons for this are:

1. The earliest and best manuscripts lack the words “in Ephesus” in verse 1
2. It is a very impersonal letter for a place where St Paul had spent a number of years and had close personal attachments.

3. Some expressions in the Epistle which seem impossible to reconcile with the supposition that it was written to the Church at Ephesus [1.15; 3.2; 3.4; 4.21, 22].

If it was a circular or encyclycal letter, then it is easy to explain the ascription “to the Ephesians” and the addition of that name in verse 1. When the letters of St Paul were collected, because it was from Ephesus that the copies would reach the Christian workd generally . “Once accepted as addressed to the Ephesians, the analogy of other Epistles in which τοῖς οὖσιν is followed by the name of the place would naturally suggest the inertion of ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ” [T. K. Abbott].

Contents and Outline.

The introductory note from the NOAB is worth summarizing:
The theme of this letter is God’s eternal purpose in establishing and completing the universal Church of Jesus Christ. The Ephesians were drawn from various backgrounds and nationalities but have all been called by God the Father, redeemed and forgiven through his Son, and incorporated into a fellowship that is sealed and directed by the indwelling Spirit of God. “This Trinitarian emphasis, in a lyrical mood, appears in 1.5, 12, 13; 2.18-20; 3.14, 16, 17; 44-6”. The author suggests both glorious privilege and destiny and the duties of the believers through developing such figures of the Church as the Body of Christ (1.23; 4.16), the building or temple of God (2.20-22) and the Bride of Christ (5.23-32).
Written while Paul was a prisoner (3.1; 4.1;6.20), probably at about the same time as Colossians, with which it shares many phrases and expressions.
The Epistle has two main sections:

I. A mainly doctrinal section; 1.1-2.31
1.1-2 Salutation:
1.3-2.22: On the Plan of Salvation
*1.3-14: Hymn of the divine purpose
1.15-23 Prayer for the Knowledge of the Power of Christ
2.1-10 God’s love in Christ
*2.11-22 Jew and Gentile
3.1-21: On the Apostle and the Church
3.1-13 Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles
*3.14-21 Prayer for the Church
II. Various Exhortations: 4.1-6.24
*4.1-6: To keep the Unity of the Spirit
*4.7-16 Of the gifts given for buildng up the Church
4.17-24 Of the Old and New Man
*4.25-5.2 The Duty to the Neighbour
*5.3-21 Once Darkness, but now light [5.15-20 is read]
5.22-6.9 The Christian Household
*6.10-20 Put on the Armour of God
6.21-22 Conclusion and Blessing

This week's reading, 1.3-14, is a prayer of thanksgiving. It was usual in ancient letter-writing to follow the opening salutation with a short thanksgiving or prayer on behalf of the person addressed. It was the Apostle’s practice to expand on this element in a distinctively Christian way. In his commentary, Abbott summarizes the passage thus:
1. 3-8: Praise to God for the blessings of salvation. The granting of this was no new thing in God’s purposes, but had been determined before the creation of the world. The object to be attained was the we shoold be holy and blameless, and with a view to this He has admitted us to the adoption of sons through Chriost, in whom we have received our redemption.
1. 9-11: God hath made known to us His purpose to sum up all things in Christ, whether they be things in heaven or on earth.
1.12-14. We Jews had even in former times the promise of the Christ., which has now been fulfilled ; but the same blessings are now extended to you the Gentiles, and as the earnest of your inheritance, ye have been sealed with the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Gospel: Mark 6.14-29
The Death of St John the Baptist

Last week’s Gospel ended with Jesus’ sending the Twelve on a mission of preaching and healing. Before their return to Jesus is reported, St Mark relates the death of St John Baptist at the hands of Herod Antipas.
6.14-16. Last week we read of the negative reaction of his fellow Nazarenes to Jesus. Now we hear the reaction of the official world. Herod has heard of the work of Jesus and wonders who he is. There are various ideas, but Herod is convinced that it is John the Baptist come again.
14. King Herod: This is not Herod the Great, but his son Herod Antipas, who was not a king but puppet ruler of Galilee and Petrea under the Romans. He is given his proper title of Tetrarch in Mt 14.1.
15-16. It is Elijah … It is a prophet: see also Mt 16.14, Mk 8.28, Lk 9.19.
17-29: The account of the beheading of John Baptist is also found in Mt 14.1-12. Luke reports that John was beheaded but does not tell the story (9.7-9).
17 According to Josephus [Jewish War, 18.5], John was imprisoned at Machaerus, a fort and prison 8 km (5 miles) east of the Dead Sea, on the Nabatean border. Josephus does not report the other events in this passage. The RCL notes “A little strangely, in this story, Herod appears not to have seen John as a political threat; however Josephus says John was imprisoned as one.”
The text of Josephus may be found at http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm.
21-26: On the similarity of this narrative to the Book of Esther, see the note in RCL
22. Where the NRSV has “His daughter Herodias”, another reading is “Herodias’ daughter”, agreeing with Mt 14.6. According to Josephus, the girl’s name was Salome. (Hence the play by Oscar Wilde and the opera by R. Strauss ).
On the place of this passage in the Sunday readings, it might be enough to quote the RCL page: “Mark inserts a flashback to the story of John the Baptist to tell what discipleship may cost; vv. 16-29 anticipate Jesus’ fate, and that of some disciples.”

Lectionary Notes

Some Notes for Proper 14, Year B
The Sunday between 3 and 9 July
Being in the Year of Grace 2009 Sunday the 5th of July
the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost and Fourth after Trinity

The first Reading, 2 Samuel 5.1-5, 9-10 continues the highlights from the story of King David by narrating his acceptance as King of both Israel and Judah. Two different accounts of this even have been combined. (Two sources have been identified in the books of Samuel, the Early Source, from the time of Solomon, and the Late Source, from the latter days of the monarchy: on this see the introduction to 1 Samuel in NOAB). Verses 1-2 seem to be the work of the Late Source, which was concerned to show that God had promised the kingdom to David, while verse 3 is “the unembellished story of what was done” (NOAB),
Note that verses 6-8, which tell of David’s capture of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, are omitted. There is a different account of this event in 1 Chronicles 11.4-9. The conquest of Jerusalem provided a capital which had been part of neither the northern nor the southern territory. It was common for a conqueror to rename a city.
The Millo is translated in the Judaica Press version as “the mound”, and described as “A low walled enclosure which is filled with earth and [where] the top of the mound is in the center with a gradual decline in all directions.” It is usually understood to have been an earthwork south of the temple area.

Psalm 48 is a hymn of praise in honour of Jerusalem.
In the BAS psalter part of verse 2 refers to the hill of Zion as “the very centre of the world”. The Judaica Press has “by the north side”, while the RSV has “Mount Zion, in the extreme North”. This seems to be more accurate. The NOAB notes that this is “a curious phrase which apparently identifies the Israelite holy mountain wiuth the Canaanite mountain of the gods”. For “ships of Tarshish, NOAB also gives the ever so helpful note, “ships capable of making long voyages”. Tarshish is a place, far from Israel, which has never been identified. When I was young I always read that it was Spain, but this doesn’t seem to be true.
If you will forgive a personal reminiscence, verses 11-12 of this Psalm (the the Prayer Book version came to me when I was walking on the walls of Jerusalem in 1997.
Walk about Sion, and go round about her; / and count the towers thereof
Mark well her bulwarks, consider her citadels, / that ye may tell them that come after.

The Epistle, 2 Corinthians 12.2-10, is the last selection from this letter that we read in this part of the lectionary. Next week we begin a selection from the Letter to the Ephesians which will run to the end of August. Might I suggest that reading the whole of Ephesians through in advance might make it easier to see the passages selected for the Sundays in context?

As to this week's passage, I hope that a note adapted from the New St Joseph Sunday Missal might suffice. "Paul encounted problems similar to those of .... Jesus himself. 'False preachers' have confused the congregation of Corinth. They have bragged about ... extraordinary revelations from God. Paul, on the contrary, will boast of nothing except his physical condition, which is miserable: "I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me..... for when I am weak, then I am strong." He thus invites his converts to see in him Christ whom he represents.

It is also worth noting that Paul asked three times that the 'thorn' whatever it was, might be removed, but was refused. This must always be remembered in considering prayer answered and apparently unanswered.

The Holy Gospel, Mark 6.1-13, falls into two sections. In the Roman lectionary these two parts are read this Sunday and next. There is, however, a connection between the two parts, as is noted below.
The first section, verses 1-6, tells of Jesus’ rejection in his home town; the second, 7-13, narrates the mission of the Twelve on a tour of preaching and healing. A number of interesting and important points come up in these verses.
The synoptic parallels to verses 1-13 are Matthew 13.53-58 and Luke 4.16-30. Textual questions arise in these verses that are beyond the scope of these notes, so I suggest that you consult a good commentary (or more than one!).
The NRSV gives “hometown”, but the word patris can equally well mean “own country”, as we read in the RSV and other versions. It has been pointed out that this double sense is important, since the rejection by his home town foreshadows is rejection by his nation. See John 1.10-11. Here we find a link between this first section and the second in the theme of rejection. Jesus, by telling the disciples what to do when folk refuse to welcome them or hear their word (v. 11) is warning them that they will sometimes be rejected, as he was.
Much has been written on the natural disinclination of the people of Nazareth to accept that a “local boy” they know well could be something special. Likewise, much has been written about the faith as a requirement for miracles. Note that in Matthew 13.58 “he could do no mighty work” is softened to “he did not do many mighty works”. The people of Nazareth are tupical of those who “see and do not perceive, hear and do not understand”.
The unbelief of his own people, which caused Jesus to marvel, is the central point of this passage.
Some other points that ask for comment.

Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary? is the likely reading, but there is a respectable alternative reading, “Is not this the son of the Carpenter and Mary?”, which agrees with Matthew and Luke. Carpenter is better understood as ‘builder’ than ‘joiner’ or ‘cabinet maker’. This was the meaning of 'carpenter' in older English. Indeed, the original word, tekton, is an element in our ‘architect’ (understood as ‘master builder’). It has been suggested that since buildings were more often of stone in that part of the world, that "mason" might be used, and the many Gospel references to rocks and stones and cornerstones support this. The Vulgate renders it as faber, which one might read as "smith". This appears to be the way the Venerable Bede took it: "For although human things are not to be compared with divine, still the type is complete, because the Father of Christ works by fire and spirit" (from the Catena Aurea).
On the identification of Jesus as “son of Mary” and its possible implications, see R. E. Brown, Birth of the Messiah, Appendix V: ‘The Charge of Illegitimacy”, esp. pp 537ff. It is possible that it means nothing stronger than, "We know his mother", with the inference that the father is dead.
The mention of the brothers and sisters of Jesus raises many questions, and is complicated by the very ancient belief in the perpetual virginity of our Lady. A few points may be in order”
1. From Old Testament usage (for example, Genesis 13.8) it is clear that the word translated “brother” can also mean “kinsman”.
2. As the old Catholic Encyclopaedia points out, “Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matthew 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her?”
3. William Temple notes of the mention of Jesus’ brothers in John 7 that they were
“were (no doubt) the sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage. They attempt to exercise the authority commonly claimed by older brothers. They are sceptical, as elder brothers might be expected to be. They are not hostile, but are puzzled by their younger brother’s reputation in Galilee, and would like it and its grounds to be subjected to the test of the more sphisticated minds in Jerusalem.”
3. There is the question of why Jesus on the Cross committed his mother into the care of the Beloved Disciple (John 19.25-27) if she had other sons who could care for her.
C. B.Moss notes these last two points as well: “The ‘brethren of the Lord’ treated Him as a younger rather than as an elder brother (St. Mark 3:31: St. John 7:3), and it was to St. John, her nephew, that our Lord entrusted His Mother, which would have been strange if she had had sons of her own (St. John 19:26). For this reason it seems highly probable that the tradition of the Church is true, that our Lord was the only son of His Mother, and that His "brethren" were the sons of St. Joseph by a former wife (pp 73-4).”
Moss also notes that, while the belief in our Lady’s perpetual Virginity is “a very ancient and almost universally held tradition … the historical evidence for the Perpetual Virginity is not sufficient for us to be able to regard it as a dogma. We cannot say: ‘It must have been so, therefore it was so’; belief must be based on positive evidence.”
Those inadequate notes will have to suffice for now.
The synoptic parallels to the second section are Matthew 10. 1, 9-11, 14 and Luke 9.1-6.

We may note that the instructions Jesus gave to the Twelve to travel lightly vary in the different Gospels (see Matthew 10.9, Luke 10.4). Alec Vidler notes: “No doubt account was taken of the fact that what was feasible in Palestine was not so elsewhere. These are not to be regarded, nor were they from the first regarded. as timeless laws for missionary activity, though in many respects they have an enduring point, e.g. travelling light and not fussing about superfluous accessories. ‘The young Church understood that the instructions of Jesus which were suited to that time do not remain literally obligatory, as is shown bu the divergence in Matthew and Luke. What counts is the spirit of apostolic simplicity’.
One should not interpret “take nothing … except a staff” as the biblical foundation of ecclesiastical bureaucracy.

A Note for Proper 13, Year B

Once again it has too busy a week to prepare extensive notes on all the Sunday’s Readings. However, there is one note on the Readings that I want to make available. If sometign else comes to me while I am working on the sermon, I will add it.

The First Reading: Samuel 1.1, 17-27

The first book of Samuel ended with the death of Saul and Jonathan in battle against the Philistines on Mount Gilboa (1 Sam 31). The news was brought to David, who had been driven out by Saul and settled in Ziklag, near Gath, and defeated the Amalekites (1 Sam 27-29). In this reading we have the lament of David for Saul and Jonathan on hearing of their deaths.
The song is said to have been taken from the Book of Jasher (‘the Upright’), an old collection of poems which is now lost (see Joshua 10.13). The text of the lament has been damaged over the centuries, and is not clear in several places (especially verses 18, 19, and 21). The fact that there is no specifically religious reference and the magnanimity of David towards Saul, who had been hateful to him, may be taken as grounds for accepting the authenticity of this song. The author of Samuel shows a hostility to Saul which one might have expected to find in this lament if it had in fact been a later composition.
In verse 21 some versions make “not anointed with oil” refer to Saul and others to Saul’s shield. If it refers to the shield, the image is of its being left on the field to rust; if to Saul, as the NOAB notes, the “not” is an editorial comment refusing to acknowledge him as the Lord’s anointed.
For the love of David and Jonathan, see 1 Samuel 18.1-5 and chapter 20. Scholars disagree about the nature of the affection between the two men. For an introduction to the discussion, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan and the references there
David’s lament is a very beautiful poem and one which has had much influence on later literature. Many who know little of the bible will recognize such lines as the refrain “How are the mighty fallen” and “Tell it not in Gath, piblish it not in the streets of Ashkelon”.

Friends,

Of your charity remember before God the soul of Cy Reader. a long-time parishioner at St Columba and Al Hallows and a friend, who was buried on Friday.

Disclaimer & Apology

Several advertisements which appear on this Blog do not represent my opinions or those of any right-thinking Christians, and I find them offensive. However, having them remived is a chore, and I live in hope that better advertisements wil appear.

Lectionary Notes

Some notes for

The Feast of the Holy and Undivided Trinity

Year B
7 June AD 2009

Here I am again, dear Readers, and I am sorry that it has become somewhat difficult to keep these notes up. It is unfortunate that the reason I have had time to sit down to the task is that I am a little under the weather and have to stay home!Lec

First Reading: Isaiah 6.1-8
The call of Isaiah. In 742 BC. Assyria was expanding its borders and threatening the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The northern kingdom, Israel, is trying to coerce Judah into a military alliance to face the threat. At this time King Uzziah, who had reigned for forty years and led the country to greater security and prosperoity, was sick and nearing death. [On King Uzziah, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzziah_of_Judah, and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11379a.htm.]
In the Temple, as it appears, Isaiah has a vision of God on a lofty throne, with seraphim in attendance hovering above him. These creatures (the name means “fiery” are only once mentioned in the Scriptures of the Old Testament although they are known in art from the ancient Near East. See , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seraphim for a quick introduction to the Seraphim. Since the text makes it absolutely clear that ‘Seraphim’ is a plural form there is no need to resport to using ‘seraphs’. The three pairs of wings appear to be symbolic, and it appears the ‘feet’ is a euphemism for the private parts.
The Seraphim cry to one another ‘holy is the Lord God of hosts’. [For Monteverdi’s settting from the 1610 Vespers, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxWilsd0heM.] The triple repetition of ‘holy’ identifies God as all-holy, sinless, apart from earthly things. Today, we cannot avoid hearing in it a foreshadowing of the revelation of God as Trinity.
We know God as Trinity because of the divine mission, the sending of the Son and the Spirit into the world, a mission into which we are called. So it is fitting that this reading from the prophet Isaiah is concerned with mission: ‘Whom shall I send?”

Psalm 29
The Psalm sees the glory of the Lord in a great storm (one is reminded of Horace Odes, III.5, Caelo tonantem credidimus Iovem regnare). While there does nto seem to be an obvious trinitarian connection iin this psalm, there is a resonance of verse 3, ‘the voice of the Lord is over the waters,’ with the moment when Jesus, coming up from the waters of baptism hears the voice of the Father from heeaven and the Spirit descends on him, a moment which some threologians consider the primary revelation of the Trinity in the Gospels.

The Epistle: Romans 8.12-17
While the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly stated in the New Testament, a three-fold understanding of God’s life and action runs through its pages, and it was in trying to hold onto all these facts that the doctrine came to be expressed. Useful for reading on this point are G. L. Prestige’s Fathers and Heretics and the first part of Eric Mascall’s Via Media. This passage from Romans is one of those in which the Fatherly, the Filial, and the Spiritual are seen in the Divine action. More importantly, by speaking of our adoption as heirs, it points the way to understanding why the doctrine of the Trinity was revealed to us: for unless there is relationship within God’s life, there is no way in which we can share that life.
It should be noted that in verse 14 ‘children’ translates the Greek huioi, ‘sons’, while in verse 17 it translates tekna, ‘children’. In neither case should we be thinking of little children; the idea is of the ‘heir’, as is made clear in verse 17.
The word ‘spirit’ varies much in meaning in this passage. In ‘spirit of servitude’ (verse 15) it means ‘the dominant habit or frame of mind’, while in the next verse it refers to both the Spirit of God and the spirit of human beings.

The Holy Gospel. John 3.1-17.
The visit of Nicodemus to Jesus by night is well known and has so often been commented on, that there are only a few points that need to be made$ just now.
One point that bears repeating, even though it has often been noted concerns the idea of being “born again”. In the NRSV vs 3 is given as “"Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.” The word rendered by “from above” is ἄνωθεν, which may also mean “anew” as the NRSV notes. It is impossible to convey both meanings in one English word. However, as Nicodemus’ misunderstanding shows, both meanings must be kept in mind throughout the passage. Temple notes: “The Greek words carry both meanings, and it is not necessary to choose. The element ‘again’ is here primary; but that new borth has only one source. A man cannot accomplish it for himself—as Nicodemus knows and is quick to point out.”
Likewise, in verse 8 we need to remember that “wind” and “spirit” are the same word in the original (πνεῦμα), a word which also means breath.
Some reputable mss add the words “who is in heaven” after “the Son of Man” at the end of verse 13. Temple notes:

Some ancient student has added here the words which is in heaven. Whatever their origin, they represent a most important truth. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity was no less in heaven during the period of the earthly ministry than either before or after it. What we see as we eatch the
life of Jesus is the very life of heaven—indeed of God—in human expression.

It is unclear when the quotation of Jesus’ words ends and the narrator’s voice resumes: some, such as Temple, hold that the whole of vv 10-17 are meant to be read as Jesus’s words, while other commentators would end the quotation at v. 15.

Lectionary Notes

Some Reflections on the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year B

Sometimes Known as Rogation Sunday

Back Again!

Over the past few weeks other responsibilities have crowded out some of the pleasant tasks I assign myself, not the least of which are these little notes, and I apologize for their absence. Last week I reached the point of having so little time to attend to the Sunday readings that I dug up a nine-year-old sermon, dusted it off and hoped for the best Things are a little more settled now, and here are a few notes. As I come back to a broken routine it is clear to me that there is no hope to make a useful comment on the whole lectionary. This week, I will only provide a few comments on points that struck me with some force as I read through the texts and attended to the commentaries.

Rogation Sunday

Back when this was the fifth Sunday after Easter, it was commonly called Rogation Sunday because of the old tradition of outdoor litanies in procession. The first three weekdays were known as the Rogation Days, on which prayers were offered for agriculture and the like. This year it is nice that the Victoria Day Holiday falls on Rogation Monday.

The Collect

is a version of the Prayer Book Collect for the Sixth Sunday after Trinity [page 226]. The sense of the prayer is substantially unchanged, but it might be worth while to compare “you have prepared for those who love you riches beyond imagination” and “who hast prepared for those who love thee such good things as pass man’s understanding”. There is no question but that the term “man’s” is expendable; but what of the difference between “understanding” and “imagination”. Is this just a question of taste?

The First Reading.

In the final weeks of Easter, the readings from Acts tell of the beginning of the Gospel’s expansion beyond the limts of Israel. Last week we heard of the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch, this week we hear how the Holy Spirit fell on the household of the Roman centurion Cornelius as St Peter preached. It would be helpful to read all of Acts 10 and the opening 18 verses of Acts 11 before Sunday in order to hear this passage in context. In Acts 11 we hear how Peter recounted his experience in order to meet the objections of “the circumcision party”; the passage ends with “the apostles and brethren glorifying God and saying, .”Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life”.
All through this section it is made clear that the call of the Gentiles is God’s doing and God’s decision: the meeting of Peter and Cornelius was managed by dreams (10: 3-6; 10-16), and in this passage not only does the verb “fall upon” show the Spirit’s free action, the later verb “pour out” echoes the prophecy of Joel 3:1-3 which Peter had applied to the Pentecost in the first Christian sermon: see 2:17-18, 33.

The Holy Gospel: John 15.9-16

In the Gospel reading for today, the Lord’s teaching is centred around “my love”, “my joy” and “my commandment”. This is the last part of the discourse on the Vine and the branches which we began to read last Sunday, and is part of the larger “farewell discourse” in which Christ prepared his disciples for hi sdeparture from them.
In his Readings in St John’s Gospel, William Temple brings out a nuance in the Greek that is not captured in our English version. In verse 9 he gives “the love that is mine”, in verse11 “the joy that is mine” and in verse 12 “the commandment which is mine”. In each case in the Greek both the noun and the pronoun have the definite article, as ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐμῇ, whereas verse 10 Temple gives “in my love”, as in the original only the noun has the article—ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ μου. This is not simply a bit of gramatical nit-picking. There is a real emphasis on the pronoun which it seems a shame to lose in the translation. In the first case Temple comments:

The words mean much more than ‘continue in the shelter of my love for you (Bernard). The divine love, which is the Holy Ghost, is much more than a sheltering protection, it is a pervasive atmosphere in which we may dwell, and which we may breather, so that it becomes the breath of our lives (cf 20.22). We are to let that love wrap us about, enfolding us in its embrace.

Similarly Temple comments of “the joy that is Christ’s”:

“The promise and hope is not only that we may be joyful as our Master is joyful—(my joy)—but that joy of the same substance and quality as His —the joy that is mine—may be in us.”

The new commandment (John 13.34) is repeated in this discourse, with the same reference to Christ’s own death: —as I have loved you. It cannot be stressed too much that, as Temple puts it: “This is not a command to all the world, as will appear soon (v. 18); nor is it a command concerning the relation of Christians to non-Christians. It is the command to the Christian felowship.” The life of the fellowship is fouinded on, indeed it exists because of, this love. That we do not feel so close and deep a bond with our fellow-Christians, that this fellowship is not “a reality more profound and effective than our membership of our earthly fellowships” shows “that we do not truly abide in Him”.
“Friends” in verse 18 should not be overstressed; it does not represent those who love Christ but those whom he loves, whether or not they return his love. In the next verse we discover what it is to be true friends of Christ, who respond to the love He showed in his self-giving death.
No more on this now: the passage goes on to what are clearly some of the most important words of the whole Gospel, “You did not choose me, but I chose you”. But that will be the burden of Sunday’s sermon, I suspect, and I need to give it more thought than can allow me to comment on it here and now..

It is probably better to make thse notes available in good time than to try to say too much. So that’s all we’ll have this week.

Lectionary Notes

Some Notes on the Second Sunday of Easter, Year B
19 April 2009

I regret that the pressure of pastoral work made it impossible both to bring the notes on Holy Week up to date and to provide reflections on Easter Day, and hope that my readers will be understanding. This week’s notes are somewhat less complete than I would like, but perhaps what is here will be of some help and interest.

Of the Sunday

In the old Calendar this was the First Sunday after Easter, but the revised liturgy, wishing to stress the unity of the fifty days of Easter names the Day of the Resurrection the First Sunday of Easter. This is probably an improvement. In the Roman Rite the introit for this Sunday had (and has as an option) the antiphon 1 Peter 2.2, “Like newborn children you should thirst for milk, on which you spirit can grow to strength, Alleluia.” From the first words in Latin, Quasi modo geniti infantes, this Sunday gained the name Quasimodo, and since in a famous novel a certain foundling appeared at Notre Dame on this day … [It may be noted that the liturgical text of the antiphon differs from the standard text of the Vulgate, which is “sicut modo geniti, &c.”]

The Sentence and Collect make doubt and belief the themes of this Sunday, in line with the Gospel account of St Thomas’ doubt and coming to faith, which is read in all three years.

The Readings
Acts 4.32-35

The first nine chapters of the Acts of the Apostles relate the growth of the Church in Jerusalem. In these chapters there are three summaries which “they tend to generalize and idealize” [RCL commentary]. The summaries are this passage and 2:42-47 and 5:12-16. This reading follows the account of the healing of a lame man by Peter and John at the Temple in the name of Jesus [3.1-10]. There was a great public interest and Peter delivered a sermon [3.11-26]. The reaction of the Sadducees and the Council was hostile: the two apostles were arrested and questioned, but after forbidding them to speak any more of the name of Jesus the Council released them [4.1-18]. Peter and John explained politely that they would not be able to cease speaking of what they “had seen and heard”. They returned to the other disciples, and the community gave thanks and were filled with the Holy Spirit so that the place where they were shook [4.23-31]. Then follows the summary passage [32-37].
The community is described as having all things in common, so that none said that what belonged to them was their own. Some observations on this “apostolic communism” are in order.
Even the most socialist of Christians who laments with St John Chrysostom that the Church has relapsed into private property will realize that this this experiment of the first Christians in common living was apparently of short duration. Indeed, this passage and the story of Ananias and Sapphira suggest that communal property was a voluntary rather than an absolute condition of community life (see especially 5.3-4). The last two verses of the summary [4.376-7] which are for some reason omitted from today’s reading also prompt one to ask how common the selling of property actually was, if Branabas is remembered by name for doing this thing.
However, to discuss these questions is to discuss how the community fulfills the new commandment of the Lord Jesus, to love one another as he has loved us. If Christians see the things they own as God’s gift, whose primary purpose is to help others, then perhaps they do not need to hold all things in common. The verse that tests our apostolic living, then, would not be “everything they owned was held in common”, but “there was not a needy person among them”.

Psalm 133

This is of the “Psalms of Ascents” [Psalms 120-134], associated with the coming of pilgrims to Jerusalem, which sings of the joys of fraternal harmony, is an apt reflection on the first reading. The RCL commentary refers the first verse to the commandment of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25.5, on which see http://montreal.anglican.org/comments/beas2m.shtml. This seems to me to stretch the meaning, but then I am not an expert on the Old Testament.

The Epistle, 1 John 1.1-2.2

In this passage the author stresses that the teachers in the community were eye witness of the events they proclaim. On the whole question of eye-witness testimony and its place and importance in the early church, especially in the formation of the Gospels, see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). The RCl comments on this passage .
This reading is linked to today’s Gospel by the first verse, “what we have looked at and touched with our hands”, and in the purpose of the letter as given in verses 2 and 3. For the rest the passage is quite straightforward: you might find the RCL commentary on this passage helpful.

The Holy Gospel: St John 20.19-31

The Gospel passage has three sections. John 20.19-23 relates the first appearance of the Risen Lord to the disciples on the evening of the first Easter Day. 20.24-29 tells of Thomas, who was not then present, but sees the Lord a week later. 20.30-31 form a conclusion to the Gospel: for its relation to the following chapter, see a good commentary on John. I would particularly recommend Archbishop Temple’s Readings in St John’s Gospel, which is an almost indispensible companion to the Fourth Gospel. He treats this passage on pp 377-8 of the complete edition (reprint, Morehouse Barlow, 1985).
Some points should be noted.
Both appearances of the Lord occur when the disciples are gathered on the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day. That it was in the evening is no surprise, since Sunday was an ordinary weekday. Temple suggests that it was late in the evening, referring to the account of the journey to Emmaus (Luke 24.29, 33-36). That the Lord’s appearances were made on the Lord’s Day to the assembled community is important, for the Gospel is addressed to those who come to faith not through sight or touch but through the witness of the apostles.
The doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews [NRSV]: the RSV’s “shut” is a better translation, for while the word is related to kleis, “key” it seems to mean rather “shut up” than lock: the Vulgate has clausae, shut. There is nothing in the text to justify “of the house”, and although “had met” is found in some manuscripts, “where the disciples were” is the reading of the better texts. It is only necessary to think of the room they were in being shut up, though the whole house may have been. I point these things out to suggest that the NRSV is sometimes too loose a rendering, but having said that I will try not to dwell on it. Far more important is how we read for fear of the Jews. It is very important that we remember the note in the Liturgy of Good Friday here: “The term ‘the Jews’ in St. John’s Gopspel applies to particular individuals and not to the whole Jewish people.” This should be obvious, since as far as we know all the people behind the shut doors were themselves Jews. Specifically, the term should be taken to refer to the religious leadership of the day.
The RCL commentary says that “it is not clear why at this time Jesus’ followers should fear them”, but it seems quite natural that the followers of a man who had been condemned and executed might be at some risk from the authorities. Temple says, “no doubt the story of the empty tomb was known and the disciples might well be charged with stealing the Body.”
Much has been said about the appearance of the Lord. Temple’s comment is helpful and restrained.:

came Jesus and stood in the midst. We need not say that He came through the closed doors; The Evangelist does not say that; the word came implies no more than that at one time He was not there and at a later time He was there. But the story does imply that the Risen Body was free from some of its former limitations.

He showed them his hands and sides as marks of identity. The common greeting Peace with you had a deeper meaning for the disciples because of Jesus’ words in John 14.27: Peace I leave to you…
Our translation then has: “When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” This should be translated as “receive holy spirit”, on which see Temple, page 368, where he notes that “what is bestowed is not the Divine Person Himself but the power and energy of which He is the source”. He goes on to point out that the authority to forgive is here “given to the body, not, or at least not necessarily or certainly, to any one member of that body”, but that “in practice the Church must do this through appropriate organs”: Matthew 16.19 “supports the practice of the Church in translating this commission from the plural to the singular in the Ordination of Priests”. The rest of the discussion is unfortunately too long even to summarize here.

Sadly, I must stop there if these notes are to be available before Sunday. I hope that the joy of the Resurrection may be yours.