While Looking for Something Else

Hissing in the House.'

From time to time the behaviour of Members of Parliament is condemned as too rowdy and rude. I can remember hearing of such complaints as long as I can remember hearing of Parliament, and it has often been said that the behaviour grew worse after the Commons' sittings began to be televised. I haven't heard much recently, but problems like this seem to go on and on; is it useless to appeal for better behaviour?

Perhaps not; while I was looking for something else in the Journals of the House of Commons from the Parliament of 1604, I happened upon a most indignant motion:

Mr. Hext moveth against Hissing in the House; as not beseeming the Gravity of the Assembly, derogating from the Dignity of it, and from the Privileges, more than any other Abuse whatsoever.*

It must have worked. I can't recall any recent complaints about hissing in the house. But was hissing really worse than any other abuse?

*From: 'House of Commons Journal Volume 1: 26 March 1604 (2nd scribe)', Journal of the House of Commons: volume 1: 1547-1629 (1802). URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=9611. Date accessed: 16 September 2008.

Lectionary Notes

Some Thoughts on the Propers for Holy Cross Day
Sunday, September 12, 2008

The Sentence is Galatians 6.14, “Far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ”; in the Roman Rite this verse is not used as the alleluia but as the entrance antiphon; the verse “We adore you O Christ and we bless you, because by your cross you have redeemed the world,” which we are familiar with from the Stations of the Cross, is used for the alleluia. The stretch between “glorying in” the Cross of Jesus and “exalting” the cross is probably not too great to allow us to see this verse as a very fitting statement of the theme of today’s festival, the Exaltation or Triumph of the Cross. However, it is good to remember that in Galatians Saint Paul goes on to say “by which (or “through whom”) the world has been crucified to me and I to the world, and remember that we are called not only to exalt and glory in the Cross on which Christ was exalted and by which Christ triumphed over evil, but to take it up, to carry it, and to live it.

The Collect is the same as the collect in the American Prayer Book. The Canadian Book of Common Prayer 1962 provides a different collect “Of Holy Cross Day” (p. 231). In declaring that Christ was “lifted high” [exaltatus est] to draw the world to himself this collect strikes the tone for the day reflects both the words of Christ in the Gospel for today and its foreshadowing in the first reading and the old name of the Feast, the Exaltation of the Cross.

The Readings
The First Reading, Numbers 21.4b-9.

In the legends that grew up in Christian tradition, the Tree of the Cross was identified with the Tree of the Fall. The bronze serpent lifted up by Moses in the wilderness to heal the people of Israel was identified by Jesus as a type of the lifting up of the Son of man on the Cross. This sort of identification is known as “typology”.
Typology is an extremely important concept in biblical interpretation. A type may be defined as

An impression, image or representation of some model which is termed the anti-type; in this sense we often use the word to denote the prefiguration of the great events of our redemption by persons or things in the Old Testament. Thus the brazen serpent and the paschal lamb were types of which our Lord was the antitype.

We would do well to take a moment to consider that the concept of type is vital for understanding the unity of Scripture. To put this another way, One saving act is a type of another because it is the one and only God who is revealed to us and whose saving acts are recorded in the Scriptures. (Once again we see how vital is the question of whether we really believe that God acts). It is only natural that some events, &c., prefigure or foreshadow others. The type, however, is not merely a symbol; it has its own reality and exostence as a saving and revealing act. So the intended sacrifice of Isaac would have happened and been a revelation of God to Abraham, even if God had not also meant it to be a type of the saving death and resurrection of Christ. Again, the crossing of the Red Sea is a type of baptism, but only because it was the real salvation of Israel from Egypt and the first step on the journey to the promised land.
Jesus’ words in the Gospel for today are a foundation of the concept of type. For other passages in the New Testament that bear on the idea, see Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 10:6; Hebrews 8:5; Galatians 4:24; Hebrews 9:9, 9:24; 1 Peter 3:21.
In the text we may note that the “fiery serpents” were probably so called not because they were little dragons but because of the burning caused by their venom. But that serpents were sent to punish the people for gruimbling is itself of interest. On Holy Cross Day We cannot avoid linking the fiery serpents with the serpent in the garden of Eden, and remembering the prophecy there of enmity between the serpent and the woman’s offspring. Interestingly enough in the commentaries of Rashi we find it said: ”Let the snake, which was smitten for speaking evil to Eve; come and punish those who spread slander about the manna”. Would some say this is too fanciful a connection for building doctrine? Perhaps but hardly too fanciful to lead us into deeper meditations on Scripture. As we are often reminded, there are no coincidences.
This account also shows the links in culture and ritual between the people of Israel and the peoples around the, such as Midian and Egypt. There are notes on these points in the RCL Commentary.

Psalm 98.1-6.

The Roman Missal appoints verses from Psalm 78; coments on this selection may be found in the RCL notes {see the link to this site on the left].
The New Oxford Annotated Bible describes this psalm as a “Hymn proclaiming the future establishment of God’s Kingship on the earth.”
Verse 1: summons to worshp, calling on the people to praise the Lord for his faithful love to them. It must be noted that although the verbs are all in a past tense, their reference is the future. The same poetic usage is found in Psalm 76.3. See also Psalms 46, 47, and 48.
Verses 2-4 declare the Lord’s triumph over all the forces that oppose him.
Verses 5-10 summon all nations [5-7] and the physical world itself [8-10] to join in singing God’s praises.
It is not clear to me why the selection ends at verse 6; a more natural cut would be at the end of verse 7.
We should probably look for the reason this Psalm was chosen for Holy Cross Day in the call for a new song, since the marvellous thing we celebrate is a new one. The Lord’s victory is declared not in the defeat of his enemies but in the his death on the Cross. Indeed, one might spend time pondering the new meaning this gives to the words “With his right hand and his holy arm, has he won for himself the victory”, for he won the victory in stretching out his arms on the Cross.

The Epistle: 1 Corinthians 1.18-24

In the preceding section Paul has written against divisions (schismata) in the community at Corinth; he had heard that they had fallen into factions, some claiming to be “of Paul”, some “of Apollos”, others “of Cephas”, and still others to be “of Christ”. This seems to have had to do with the one who baptized them, for Paul declares proudly that he baptized few, and that Christ had not sent him “to baptize but to proclaim the Good News, not in the wisdom of words, lest the Cross of Christ be emptied [of its power]. Now he goes on to proclaim that his preaching (ond ours) is the Good News of the Cross of Christ.
It is a mystery to me why this selection ends at verse 24, when it would seem most natural to continue on to verse 25: “For the foolshness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” It is after this verse that our modern translations make a pararaph division.
The quotation in verse 19 is from Isaiah 29.14b; as is noted in the RCL Commentary, this is from Isaiah’s account of a time when Israel was threatened by Assyria. “The king’s counsellor (a “wise” man, one versed in popular philosophy) advised alliance with Egypt, but Isaiah told the king to do nothing but trust in the Lord: God would save Israel and bring to nothing the ‘wisdom of the wise’ and the ‘discernment’ (intelligence) ‘of the discerning’”. see also 1 Corinthians 3.19, which quotes Job 5.13: “He takes the wise in their own craftiness; and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end.”
Verse 21 echoes the words of Jesus in Matthew 11.25.
On verse 22, see Matthew 12.38, 16.1-4, John 2.18, 6.30 [signs] and Acts 7.16-21 [wisdom].
On the foolishness of proclaiming the Cross, see the rest of 1 Corinthians 1 and 2.1-13.
The contrast between the wisdom of the world and the foolishness of God is not something that we can just apply to our actions as if it were a ready rule of thumb. We are not necessarily called to live by the foolishness of this world! We mst learn God's way through our daily experience of trying to take up our cross and follow Christ. It is only in this experiecne that we can come to recognize in it that God's "foolishness" is wiser than the wisdom of the world. Once again, the key will be found in St Paul's words, "be transformed by the renewal of your minds".

The Holy Gospel, John 3.13-17

It is sometimes necessary to be reminded that quotation marks were not used by ancient writers, and must be added by modern editors. Indeed, quotation marks were not used in the Authorized or King James Version of 1611. While in most cases it is clear enough where a quotation ends, there are pasages where scholars differ. Today’s Gospel reading is one such case. It is taken from the account of the Pharisee Nicodemus, who came to Jesus by night (John 2.1-21). Some interpreters hold that the whole of verses 10 to 21 is meant to be read as the words of Jesus; others that the quotation concludes at verse 15, and read the following words as the narrator’s reflection. It is interesting that the RSV closes the quotation at v.15, whle the NRSV closes it at v.21! See further the note on this in the RCL Commentary.
The passage proclaims that the salvation offered by God to the world is in Christ crucified, that is, the living, risen Christ who was crucified. We who believe are to preach Christ to the world and show him forth in our lives.

What else?

To conclude, here is a handful of links from the hundreds of hits for "Holy Cross Day" in a Google search:
http://www.digitaljive.com/stdavids/sermons/sermon21/sermon21.html, a sermon on Holy Cross Day in 2003 by The Rev. Harold Shepherd, preached at St David’s, Donlands, in Toronto.

http://satucket.com/lectionary/Holy_Cross.htm A lectionary resource from the Episcopal Church.

http://www.trinity-dublin.org/saints_churchmen_events/holy_cross_day.htm. That’s Trinity Church, Dublin, Texas, by the way.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/hg1/msg00014.html http://www.holycrossnm.org/sermons/feast_days/holycrossday.pdf

Holy Cross Day

Notes on the Feast

Holy Cross Day is one of the nine feasts appointed on fixed days in the alternative Calendar of the Anglican Church of Canada that takes precedence of a Sunday. In this, our Church has restored it to the importance it held in the English Church before the Reformation. A proper collect was provided in the Canadian Prayer Book of 1962, but the feast itself remained a black-letter day. Here are some notes on the history of the feast; notes on the Propers will follow (God willing) before the Weekend.

The feast is known in the Roman Church as the Triumph of the Cross, which renders the Latin Exaltatio Sanctae Crucis. The rich significance of the title Exaltation of the Cross is seen in the readings, which centre on the word play of "lifted up" and "exalted". "As Moses lifted up (exaltavit) the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up (exaltari), that every one who believes in him may have eternal life" [Jn 3.14-15]. Though death seems to be a defeat, yet in being lifted up on the Cross, the Lord Christ is exalted. If we exalt the Cross on this day, it is so that we may in faith look unto the one lifted up thereon, and be healed.

This, or the other feast of the Cross in May (see below), has also been familiarly known as "Crouchmas" or "Crowchemesse Day", crouch being an old variant of the word "cross" (from crux, crucis). I daresay it is too late to be sending out our Chrouchmass Cards. Perhaps next year?

Some History

The festival of the Cross on the fourteenth of September commemorates the dedication of the complex of churches built in Jerusalem by order of Constantine the Great on the sites of Golgotha and the Holy Sepulchre [The Anastasia or Church of the Resurrection, known the the West as The Church of the Holy Sepulchre] dedicsted with great festivity about this date in the year AD 335. The feast of the dedication was kept anually thereafter. Connected with the erection of the basilica was the story that Helena, the emperor’s mother, whom he had charged with seeing to the building of the basilica at Jerusalem, had discovered the true cross buried at the site. [For further reading, see the Catholic Encyclopaedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm.]
The celebration on September 14 was imitated in other places, and particularly at Rome by the end of the seventh century. Relics of the cross were also brought to various places, particularly the Church of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme in Rome. In AD 615 the armies of Persia under King Chosroes II took the relic of the Cross from Jerusalem; it was recovered and restored by the Emperor Heraclius in 629.
Now the churches of Gaul at that time seem to have been unaware of the feast on September 14, but celebrated the Cross on May 3 a date that may have been derived from a legend of the finding of the Cross. In latr years the Gallican and Roman liturgies were combined, each of the two feasts was given a different character so that both could be celebrated. The 3rd of May was called the feast of the Invention [finding] of the Cross, and it paticularly commemorated St Helena's discovery of the sacred wood of the Cross; the 14th of September, the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, commemorated above all the recovery of the the relics by Heraclius. “Nevertheless,” as the old Catholic Ecyclopaedia puts it, “it appears from the history of the two feasts, which we have just examined, that that of the 13th and 14th of September is the older, and that the commemoration of the Finding of the Cross was at first combined with it.”
A strong devotional reason for this celebration of the Holy Cross in September is given by Stephen Reynolds in For All the Saints (page 278),a nd is worth quoting here:

Jesus was crucified at the time of year when people in the northern hemisphere prepare the earth for planting. But September is harvest, our time for reaping and sharing what the earth, under our care, has brought forth. Just so with our remembrance of the Holy Cross. On Good Friday we recalled its planting in the seedtime of the new creation; and now, on the verge of autumn, we look for Christ, the true Vine which the Cross supported, to bear the fruit of justice and mercy not only in opur own lives but also in the dealings of the world.

The Relics and Legends of the Cross

Satire makes much of the sheer number of purported relics of the Cross, claiming that there are enough for a navy, or at least a great ship. On this point the Catholic Encylopaedia refers to the work of Charles Rohault de Fleury, Mémoire sur les instruments de la Passion (Paris, 1870), which provides a catalogue of known relics of the true cross, and states that Rohault de Fleury

has succeeded in showing that, in spite of what various Protestant or Rationalistic authors have pretended, the fragments of the Cross brought together again would not only not "be comparable in bulk to a battleship", but would not reach one-third that of a cross which has been supposed to have been three or four metres in height, with transverse branch of two metres (see above; under I), proportions not at all abnormal (op. cit., 97-179). Here is the calculation of this savant: Supposing the Cross to have been of pine-wood, as is believed by the savants who have made a special study of the subject, and giving it a weight of about seventy-five kilograms, we find that the volume of this cross was 178,000,000 cubic millimetres. Now the total known volume of the True Cross, according to the finding of M. Rohault de Fleury, amounts to above 4,000 000 cubic millimetres, allowing the missing part to be as big as we will, the lost parts or the parts the existence of which has been overlooked, we still find ourselves far short of 178,000,000 cubic millimetres, which should make up the True Cross.”

For the Legend of the True Cross, see the homily for Good Friday, which is posted at my sermon blog, Sermonets for Christianets, on June 16 of this year. There should be a link over on the left somewhere.

On Holy Cross Day we should remember in our prayers the Order of the Holy Cross, an Anglican Monastic Order, and in particular Holy Cross Priory in Toronto and the work of those brothers.

Some Thoughts on the Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost,
Proper XXIII, Year A,

September 7, 2008

To the Reader

Now that my summer stint of covering parishes on Sundays is ended, and I don't have to prepare a sermon every week, I may not always comment on all the readings as fully every week, but note what strikes me the most as I read through them in devotional preparation for Sunday. I hope that they will continue to be of interest.

The Sentence for this Sunday, which we use as the Gospel Acclamation is from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 5.19: God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, and he has entrusted us with the message of reconciliation. This is also the Alleluia in the Roman Missal for this Sunday, the 23rd in Ordinary time. It is useful to keep this verse in mind as we read and hear the Gospel for today, which speaks of correction of individual behaviour in the Christian community.

The Collect.

This is the Collect for the Sunday Next Before Advent in the Prayer Book. That Sunday has been replaced in the new lectionary by the feast of the Reign of Christ. There are only slight changes in the new version. Here the words “we beseech thee” have been omitted, which makes “stir up” sound as if we were commanding God rather than praying. The alteration of “plenteously” to “richly” seems to make little difference, so that one might wonder why the change was made. “Plenteous” may be less commonly used nowadays, but its meaning is perfectly clear.
It is interesting to note that the compilers of the Prayer Book altered the original, which said “they more readily following the fruit of the Divine work,” to “plenteously might bringing forth the fruit of good works”. There is also another old Collect which seems to be a variant of this more fitting for just before Advent: “Stir up, we pray, thy power and come, and what thou hast promised to thy Church work mercifully even to the end of the age.” From this we may conclude that altering traditional forms did not begin with the BAS!

The Readings

The First Reading : Exodus 12.1-14. This is the first reading for Maundy Thursday, and some notes on it may be found in the post for Holy Week. It was chosen for today because the first readings in this part of Year A give highlights of the story of the Exodus. The reading used in the Roman Church today is Ezekiel 33.7-9.

The Psalm, 149, is one of the “Hallelujah Psalms”. “Hallelujah” (alleluia is simply a form of the word more euphonious in Latin and Greek) is a Hebrew word meaning “Praise the Lord”. This is a liturgical song, inviting the congregation of the faithful to praise. The New Oxford Annotated Bible suggests that it was a hymn meant to accompany a festival dance [verse 3], of an apparently war-like character [verses 6-9]. The psalms chosen for the lectionary usually seem to reflect on the first reading: here the judgement on the nations reflects the final plague sent by the Lord against Egypt. One might also note, however, a link between the “binding of the kings in chains” and the promise of the Lord Jesus to his disciples that what they “bind” on earth will be bound in heaven. See also the notes on this Psalm at the RCL site http://montreal.anglican.org/comments/apr23l.shtml

The Epistle: Romans 13.8-14. It is unfortunate that the first seven verses of this chapter do not appear in the Sunday lectionary. This is a very important passage on the relation of Christians to the civil government of the country in which they live. There are many ideas about government in the air today, about obedience and disobedience, and while Christians in good faith come to different opinions on these matters (and almost always have), it seems unwise simply to adopt a current opinion without taking into account this teaching of St Paul. For example, there are some Christians who claim that taxes are inherently unjust and illegitimate, an opinion which seems to fly in the face of clear Scriptural teaching, especially when we consider that the power St Paul writes about here is that of the Roman Empire under Nero! The comments on this passage in the RCL commentary are well worth reading. However, since these verses are not read in Church, it would be beneficial to provide them here. In this translation I have used some old fashioned forms in order to make it clear where St Paul is writing in the singular and where in the plural.

Let every soul [psyche: AV gives “man”; RSV gives ‘person’] be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power except from God; those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists the powers, resists an establishment of God; and they that resist them, receive judgement for themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works but to bad. Wilt thou not fear the power? Do good, and thou shalt have praise from them; for he is a servant of God to thee for good. But if thou do evil, fear; for he does not bear the sword without a cause; for he is a servant of God, an avenger in wrath on him who does evil. Therefore it is necessary to be subject, not only on account of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. Therefore too you pay taxes; for they are God’s servants, attending to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, honour to whom honour is due.

After making it clear that we are to pay everything that we owe, St Paul begins the next section by reminding the Christians of Rome of the one debt that is never paid: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another: for he who loves his neighbour, has fulfilled the law”. We are to see love of neighbour not as a favour we grant, but as a debt we owe. This might be a surprise to some; in fact it is another element of the Christian life which involves being “transformed by the renewal of our minds”. On the words that love fulfills the law, see Mark 12.31; James. 2.8 John 13.34; 1 John 4.11; Col 3.14;1 Tim 1.5; 1 Corinthians 13. St Paul is here commenting on the words of Jesus, who in turn quoted Leviticus 19.18.
If love is the fulfilling of the law it is the foundation of all Christian conduct. The urgency for Christians to conduct themselves is all the greater because of the imminence of Christ’s coming. Though the time seems to have stretched, the urgency of our calling is no less. We may not know the time [kairos] of Christ’s coming, but we know very well that it is high time to act in love, and follow all these words of St Paul.

The Holy Gospel: St Matthew 18.15-20. This teaching on correction of a fellow Christian is found only in St Matthew, except for an echo in one verse of St Luke: Take heed to yourselves; if you brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him” (Luke 17.3). A sizeable body of opinion holds that this passage reflects the later experience and condition of the Christian community rather than the original words of Jesus. Indeed, the passage seems to assume a more established community even if we understand “church” as a local group of believers, as some do.
Some Christians, particularly at the time of the Reformation, have taken this passage as a prescriptive regulation for Church discipline. It is one of the scriptural foundations of the practice of excommunication.
The rule is obviously good, for first one is to try and settle the matter privately, and only when that has failed, to involve other Christians. The need for witnesses is founded on Deuteronomy 19:15, but the Lord Jesus seems to have reduced the minimum requirement to one witness in addition to the plaintiff. Moreover, the goal is clearly the reclamation of the sinner, rather than punishment: if he listens to you you have won him.
The passage concludes with a guarantee, so to speak, the assurance that the decisions of the church have the authority of heaven. Here the words that were spoken to Simon Peter are now addressed to all the disciples.
This passage needs to be read and understood in context, for its context is forgiveness and reconciliation, as the Gospel Acclamation reminds us. It immediately follows the parable of the Lost Sheep (18.10-14) and is itself followed immediately by Peter’s question of how many times he must forgive his brother, to which Jesus says “Seventy times seven” (18.21-22). This is in turn followed by the parable of the Unforgiving Servant (18.23-end). This context should make Christians cautious, thoughtful, and prayerful in applying the rules of `18.15-17.
A further consideration is the meaning of “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector, which is generally taken to mean “an unworthy outsider”, to be expelled from the Church. This interpretation is hard to deny. But as we think about these words, let us simply consider how the Lord Jesus himself treated Gentiles and tax collectors.

Lectionary Notes

Some thoughts on the Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost
Proper 22, Year A
31 August, 2008

The Sentence for this Sunday, which we use as the Gospel Acclamation or alleluia verse, is founded on Ephesians 1.17, 18 : "that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints." In most cases the sentences for the Propers in the BAS are the same as the alleluia verse of the equivalent Propers in the Roman Rite, in the case the 22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year A.

The Collect is a reworking of the Prayer Book collect for the Seventh Sunday after Trinity:

Lord of all power and might, who art the author and giver of all good things: Graft in our hearts the love of thy Name, increase in us true religion, nourish us in all goodness, and of your great mercy keep us in the same. through Jesus Christ our Lord.

There are comments on the original Collect in the notes for the Seventh Sunday after Trinity earlier in this Blog. It need only be added now that the revision in the BAS is more radical than the one in the American Prayer Book (p. 233).

The Readings

First Reading: Exodus 3.1-15. We continue reading selections from the story of God’s liberation of his people from Egypt. When Moses was grown up he had to escaped from Egypt because he had murdered an Egyptian overseer. Going to the land of Midian, in the Sinai Peninsula. The Midianites were a people related to the Israelites (see Gen 25.2). There he married Zipporah, daughter of the priest Jethro. Meanwhile, the Pharaoh (probably Seti I) died, and “the people of Israel groaned under their bondage and cried out for help”.
The call of Moses is also a revelation of the Lord God as one who cares for his people and hears their cry of anguish. The revelation itself is a miracle: both because the bush that burns and is not consumed causes Moses to wonder, since it is outside the known powers of nature and because it is clearly God’s direct action. But how do we imagine this event? Does God speak aloud, actually moving the air and acting on Moses’ ear-drums? Or is the voice that Moses hears an inner one? There is no way to know, but however we think of it, we must decide whether we believe that God did act.
The first verse of this passage is a good example of why comments have to be selective!
v. 1: Jethro is sometimes called Ruel (2.18), or possibly Hobab (Num 10.29). The confusion over his name does not affect today’s passage. Beyond the wilderness has been interpreted to mean a mysterious place like the deep in the forest of fairy tales, or simply in the middle of nowhere. The Judaica Press Complete Tanach[1] renders the phrase as “after the free pastureland”; another version is “the edge of the desert”. To Horeb the mountain of God. The mountain of God is called both Horeb or Sinai; Horeb seems to reflect a later tradition. Whatever its name, the precise location of the holy mountain is not known, although tradition places it at Jebel Musa or Mount Catharine in the south of the Sinai.
v.2. The bush may have been a thorn-bush or bramble-bush. Note that the Hebrew word, S'neh, is similar to the word Sinai.
v. 4. When the Lord calls from the bush Moses answers “Here am I”. In the Septuagint Greek text, however, what Moses says is τί ἐστι; (ti esti?), “What is it?” In some ways this seems to me a more natural response!
vv 6-10. The Lord declares to Moses that he has seen the suffering of his people and heard their cries, and has come down to free them and lead them into that good kand he had promised their ancestors. He will send Moses to Pharaoh to lead the people out of Egypt.
v 11. Moses is reluctant to obey. Like Gideon (Judges 6.11-22) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1.4-10) he raises objections to God’s call. In 3.11-4.17 Moses makes four excuses; this reading includes only the first two: “who am I to do this?” (3.11), to which God replies, “I will be with you”, and “the people will ask the name of the God who sent me” (3.13), to which God replies by solemnly declaring his name.
v. 14. Note that the Lord’s reply, I am who I am, can be translated in different ways: the NRSV offers I AM WHAT I AM and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE. The Greek version, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν (egō eimi ho ōn), can mean something like I am he who is, which has serious theological implications (see Eric Mascall, He Who Is, esp. pp 5, 10, 13; Existence and Analogy, pp 10-13).
v. 15. The divine Name, YHWH (the Tetragrammaton), is not pronounced under any circumstances in Jewish tradition. Four things may be noted here. Instead of YHWH, the Hebrew word Adonai, Lord, or Elohim, God, was pronounced instead. The vowel-signs for these words were added to the Tetragrammaton to ensure the proper word was pronounced. Second, it is from reading it with the “wrong” vowels that gave rise to the name Jehovah, which does not represent any form of the name used in Hebrew. Third, the Jewish practice has for the most part always been followed by Christians: in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures, the word Kyrios was used to render the Tetragrammaton, and Dominus was likewise used in Latin, both meaning Lord. In English versions it has come to be the convention to represent the divine Name by “The LORD”, written in small capitals. The Vatican has recently (and rightly) reaffirmed the rule that the Tetragrammaton is not pronounced in worship. (It does not appear in the official mass-texts, but has been used in hymns, which must now be re-written). Finally, when we understand this background of the word Lord as a rendering of the divine Name, we can see the true implications of such New Testament expressions as “Jesus is Lord”.

The Psalm 105.1-6, 23-26, 454c. A different section of this psalm was read on the Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost, and general remarks may be found in the remarks on that Sunday. Verses 23-26 commemorate the sufferings of Israel in Egypt and the call of Moses. “Ham” is a poetic name for Egypt: see Genesis 10.6.

The Epistle. Romans 12.9-21. St Paul exhorts his readers to the good Christian life. As a statement of the “law of love”, this passage should be read along with Chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians. The most difficult part of this teaching is the absolute prohibition of vengeance in verse 19. Only when we have truly ceased to “conform to this world” and have been “transformed by the renewal of mind” (12.2; see last week’s reading) will the instinct to avenge and justify oneself be rooted out.
It might seem that the teaching in verse 20, that you ought to assist your enemy in need and thereby “heap burning coals on his head” spoils the whole thing by turning an act of love into revenge! In fact, it means that acts of kindness bring the enemy to shame (embarrassment is often accompanied by redness and a rise in temperature) and, it is to be hoped, to repentance.

The Holy Gospel, Matthew 16.21-28
Immediately after St Peter’s confession of him as Christ, the Son of the Living God, Jesus for the first time tells his disciples of the path of suffering before him. It is as if he said to them, You have confessed that I am Messiah; now learn what it means to be Messiah. We note that the Gospel says not that he began to tell them but to show them. the sense is made known, but we should not miss the visual quality of ‘show’ that comes again at the end of the passage. He says that he must suffer at Jerusalem, the city where the prophets were put to death; see Matthew 23.29-39. Although the scriptures of the Old Testament mention only one such death (Zechariah son of Jehoiada; see 2 Chronicles 24.20-22), others were recorded in legend.
Peter could not accept the idea that the Messiah should suffer. He takes Jesus and begins to rebukes him, as if saying, “Ah, Master, don’t say that!”. It should be noted that Luke 9 omits Peter’s rebuke and the sequel. Jesus’ reply needs to be read carefully.
He turned and said to Peter. Matthew seems to mean that Jesus turned to Peter and said to Peter. However, in Mark it is turning and seeing his disciples he rebuked Peter.
Get behind me, Satan! seems to mean “begone from me”, but it was often taken by the early Fathers to mean “Come after me”. Two considerations are important here. First, the expression here translated “get behind me” (ὀπίσω μου), is rendered verse 24 as “after me” (come after me). Second, there was no punctuation in the original text; this is added in modern editions. With this in mind, we might not be surprised at St Hilary’s comment:

The Lord, knowing the suggestion of the craft of the devil, says to Peter, Get you behind me; that is, that he should follow the example of His passion; but to him by whom this expression was suggested, He turns and says, Satan, you are an offense to me. For we cannot suppose that the name of Satan, and the sin of being an offense, would be imputed to Peter after those so-great declarations of blessedness and power that had been granted him.

Again, Origen wrote on this passage:

Yet the words in which Peter and those in which Satan are rebuked, are not, as is commonly thought, the same; to Peter it is said, Get you behind me, Satan; that is, follow me, you that are contrary to my will; to the Devil it is said, Go your way, Satan, understanding not 'behind me,' but 'into everlasting fire.' He said therefore to Peter, Get you behind me, as to one who through ignorance was ceasing to walk after Christ. And He called him Satan, as one, who through ignorance had somewhat contrary to God. But he is blessed to whom Christ turns, even though He turn in order to rebuke him

A more recent commentator notes that “Whatever prominence in the church had been secured by his faith was for the time forfeited, and he must go ‘behind’.”
Peter’s words seemed to be a continuation of Satan’s temptation of Jesus in the desert: see Matthew 4:10 and Luke 4:8. [NOAB].
Nonetheless, the stone which was for a foundation had become a stone of stumbling. After the sudden revelation ‘from heaven’ the unguarded soul of Peter was now occupied by another spirit. He wished for an earthly Messiah who would not suffer or die: his mnd was set not on divine things, but on human. The verb translated as setting your mind is the same used by St Paul in Phil 2.5, ‘Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus’ — where also in verse 8 … he speaks of his ‘becoming obedient even unto the death of the cross.
In the second part of the reading (verse 24-28), Jesus tells his disciples that those who would follow him must deny themselves and take up the cross to follow him. In the Roman world, the word “crucify” had come to be a general word for suffering or torture, as is found in secular literature of the time, and in our English word “excruciate”. One condemned to die on the cross carried it, or at least the cross-beam, to the place of execution. “Jesus sees that acceptance of his message with its promise also may bring destruction. Only those who in faith accept the threat of destruction will find life. See also Matthew 5:11-12; 10:38-39; Mark 10:29-31; Luke 14:27; 17:33; John 12:25” [NOAB].
Life; the Greek word is ψυχὴ, psuchē; the Authorized version had “soul”. Here it means life not in the sense of physical existence but the higher or spiritual life, the real self. The question for what one would sell one’s soul calls to mind the legend of Faust, who made a pretty shoddy deal for his. Again, Jesus had been tempted to ‘gain the whole world (Matt 4.9) but he preferred the kingdom of heaven: ‘the world’ he left to Caesar (Matt 22.21).
One’s life might be a trifle, worth casting off for the rewards that the world can offer, if this world was everything; but it is not. The Son of man comes to bring the Father’s rewards, which are true life, forgiveness, love and joy.
This Gospel passage can be read well along with the passages from Romans we read last week and this. To deny self is an essential part of being transformed in mind (Romans 12.2). Furthermore, although the Lord’s call to take up one’s cross tell us of suffering imposed on us for our choice to follow Christ, they also speak of the death that is involved in turning away from passions and habits of the old life. Few things can be worse than denying oneself the pleasures of vengeance, of getting one’s own; which is why it is so hard to give it up. To learn to bless those who persecute, and not curse, even in the depths of your heart is part of following our Lord.
In the final words of the passage, Jesus declares that some who are standing with him will not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in his glory. Some interpret this to mean the Transfiguration, which is related in the following chapter. Others, noting that in the parallel passage in Mark (9.1) it is “before they see that the kingdom of God has come in power”, take it as referring to the coming of the Spirit on the Day Pentecost (Acts 2).

[1] This is a translation of and commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures which I sometimes find helpful (but many of the comments are textual and grammatical). It may be accessed at http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm. Another Jewish translation of the Torah with commentary may be found at http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp . I have not yet explored the Jewish biblical resources on the internet much further than this.

Lectionary Notes

Some Thoughts on the Fifteenth Sunday after Pentecost
24 August 2008
Proper 21, Year A

The Sentence, Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, chosen from the Gospel, gives the theme for the day.

The Collect is an adaptation of the collect in the Book of Common Prayer for Quinquagesima Sunday, the Sunday before Ash Wednesday:

O Lord who hast taught us that all our doings without charity are nothing worth: send thy Holy Spirit, and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity, the very bond of peace and of all virtues, without which whosoever liveth is counted dead before thee, Grant this for thine only Son Jesus Christ’s sake.

This Collect was originally composed for the first Book of Common Prayer in 1549 in place of the ancient Collect, which had a special reference to the practice of confession on Shrove Tuesday. It is based on the Epistle reading for that Sunday in the BCP, 1 Corinthians 13.1-13.
The changes in the new collect prompt a few questions for which there are no definite answers. What is the difference between saying that “God has taught us“ and that “we are taught by God’s word”? Is the omission of the final clause of the original prayer (“without which ….”) a substantial change? If so, does it strenghten or weaken the prayer. Note the changes meant to use contemporary idiom: the change of ‘very’ to “true” makes sense, since the origin of “very” is largely forgotten. The change of “nothing worth” to “worth nothing” strikes me as less happy. because it affects the rhythm of the words.

The First Reading: Exodus 1.8-2-10. Here we have the beginning of the story of the Exodus; which we wil be following in highlights in the first readings for the next few weeks. In the first part we hear of the oppression of the Israelites under a new Pharaoh, who from fear attempts to crush them by forced labour. Despite this, they multiply and grow, and Pharaoh turns to a truly wicked scheme, the annihilation of all male children of the Hebrews. Through the honesty and virtue of the two widwives, this plan is foiled. (Pharaoh is foolish as well as wicked: by killing the male children, he is destroying his slave labour.) The Lord God is planning not just to save the children, but to bring a greater good out of Pharoah’s evil. In the second part we read of the birth of Moses, who will lead the people of Israel out of Egypt.
An historical aside might be of interest here. The sixteenth-century translation known as the Geneva Bible noted that the midwives’ “diobedience herein was lawful”. At the Hampton Court Conference of 1604 King James I mentioned to show that that translation had “some notes very partial, untrue, seditious, and savouring too much, of dangerous, and traitorous conceits”. This is why the new translation he authorized was to have no notes.
The stage having been set, Chapter 2 opens with the story of Moses’ birth. Although we are later told that his parents were Amram and Jochebed (6.20) and his sister Miriam (Num 26.59), none of the characters in the story are named (Pharaoh is a title). This keeps the focus on Moses himself.
The story of an infant saved from danger by being put in a box or basket in the water is found in legends of many heroes, such as Sargon of Akkad, Kama in the Mahābhārata, and Romulus and Remus. The story of Moses turns this motif upside down. Instead of a royal infant found and fostered by commoners before discovering his true heritage, Moses the child of slaves is born an oppressed slave but adopted by the king’s daughter. Furthermore, it is known from the outset that he is a Hebrew, a fact which is apparently not hid from him. It is presumably because he is to be raised by the princess and apart from his people that he is permitted to live.
The “basket” itself has symbolic value: the original apparently means “little ark” and connects this story to that of Noah: it foresdhadows that God will save his people as he saved Noah. Indeed the theme of saving through water foreshadows the might deed of the Exodus.
By puttting the infant into the river in a basket, his mother and sister obeyed quite literally Pharoah’s command that all male children of the Hebrews be thrown into the Nile.
The text explains the name “Moses” as being from the Hebrew mashah, to draw out, but it is more likely to be an Egyptian name, the same as the element –mose in such names as Thut-mose.

Psalm 124
Fifteen of the Psalms (120-134) bear the inscription variously translated as Song of Ascents, Song of Degrees, or suchlike. This inscription likely reflects the use of these psalms by those going up to Jerusalem for the three Pilgrim festivals (see Deuteronomy 16:16). Psalm 124, is characterized as a thanksgiving for a national deliverance [NOAB] and is thus an apt reflection as we begin to read the account of the greatest deliverance, the Exodus.

The Epistle: Romans 12. 1-8. After a long meditation on the place of Israel in God’s plan comes the last major part of the letter to the Romans, an instruction on the Christian life. St Paul has described God’s mercy and his saving acts; Therefore, he now writes, present yourselves as a offering (sacrifice) to him, but a living one. To do this. your lives must not be based on the ways of this world but on the ways of Christ: Be not conformed but transformed.
Whe we hear this we are called to consider how we often unthinkingly take the ways of the community around us as a standard, rather than judging it against the standard of the Gospel of Christ.
There is a useful comment on how we go about doing this at the Commentary on the RCL http://montreal.anglican.org/comments/apr21m.shtml, and I will not steal it.

The Holy Gospel: Matthew 16.13-20. I sometimes feel that this passage comes up so regularly in the lectionary that I am always commenting on some aspect of it! However, one point should be mentioned that links this reading with the passage from Romans.
The regions of Caesarea Philippi were in the very far north of Israel. at the southern slopes of Mount Hermon and the sources of the Jordan. It had anciently been a centre of the worship of Ba’al, taken as Pan by the Greeks. Hence the name of the place was Panyas or Paneas, modern Banyas. The region had been given by Augustus to Herod the Great, after whose death it passed into the tetrarchy of his son Philip, and who expanded the city and named it Caesarea, to honour the emperor, and Philippi, to honour himself and distinguish it from Caesarea Maritima over on the coast. It has been noted that “Formerly it was known as Paneas, where Baal, the Syrian Pan, was worshipped. The sinister shadow of Herodian Romanism was over the place. The signs of the great world-powers were all aout them, and it was time that the disciples had faith in the Messiah who had come” You can find pictures of the area, and in particular the great Grotto of Pan at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banias. This is not simply an historical aside; by putting the Lord’s question, Who do you say that I am? against the background of the civil and military power of the Roman world —church and state, as it were—it links to St Paul’s challenge to be transformed and not conformed to the world.We will not comment now on the Petrine Text (Thou art Peter, &c.,) which opens up too many important and difficult questions. For one take on this verse, you might refer to the RCL Commentary for this Sunday.

Some Notes on the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost
Proper 20, Year A

The Sentence, “Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom and healed every infirmity among the people”, is founded on Matthew 4.23.

In the reading from Genesis (45.1-15) we have hopped to the denoument of the story of Joseph. His brothers sold him into slavery, but by God’s grace he became Pharaoh’s chief minister, and guided the land through seven years of good crops and the following seven years of bad crops. In the famine his brothers have come to Egypt to buy food, but did not recognize him. Finally Joseph reveals himself, and shows his love and forgiveness. At the end of the passage his brothers were able to talk with him, something they could not do peaceably before (see last week’s passage). The crux of the passage is that it was all God’s doing: “And now do not be dismayed, or angry with yourselves, because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life” (v.5); God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant upon earth, and to keep you alive for many survivors (v.7); So it was not you who sent me here, but God (v. 8). This is true of God’s actions in the world; in a nysterious way he accomplishes his will throught the free, and often evil acts of his people, and often through what appears to be chance. There is in fact never any clear evidence of God’s working.
The “land of Goshen” is now known as the Wadi Tumilat; it is a strip of grazing land in the Nile Delta. From the fact that Joseph assigns it to his family so that thay will be near him it is deduced that Pharaoh’s capital was then in the Delta region. This was the case at the time when the Hyksos, a foreign people, ruled Egypt (c. 1720-1550 BC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos]. This dating is by no means certain (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_%28Hebrew_Bible%29].

The Psalm, 133, is one of the psalms of ascents, sung by pilgrims going up to Jerusalem. It has been commented that “what is ‘good and pleasant’ is more likely the place where the worshippers gather together, and not so much their comradeship.” This interpretation seems to fit the mention of Aaron, the High Priest.] This psalm is used today to reflect on the restored unity of Joseph and his brothers. Mount Hermon lies north of Israel in the Anti-Lebanon range.

The Epistle, Romans 11.1-2a, 29-32 continues Paul’s concern over the rejection of the gospel by his fellow Israelites. The passage excerpted for today concentrates on the positive conclusion of Paul’s meditation. This is clearly seen in the excision of verses 2b to 28 in order to link more closelt the ideas that “God has not rejected his people” and “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable”. Paul’s thought is highly nuanced and perhaps better dealt with in a Bible Study than in public proclamation. Not that in this section the disobedience and disbelied of both “Jews and Greeks” are balanced.

The Gospel: Matthew 15.[10-20,] 21-28; parallel, Mark 7.1-23 The full reading appointed has two sections.

The first, verses 10-20 may be omitted. It is the conclusion of a longer section (15.1-20) which tells how Jesus upbraided the Pharisees for making void the word of God for the sake of human tradition, that is, elevating the oral interpretation to a status equal with the law (15.1-9). Now he turns to the crowd, to explain to them what this dispute is really about, that purity depends on moral behaviour, not on rituals of food and the like. The disciples, astonished at his boldness, venture to point out that he has offended the Pharisees with this saying. he bluntly tells them not to follow the Pharisees; they are blind leaders (see also Matt 23.16-17, 24; Luke 6.39; Romans 2.19). Peter, speaking for the rest asks what he meant by saying that it is not what enters a person that defiles. Jesus replies clearly. Note that Matthew, unlike Mark, does not spell out the conclusion, “Thus he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7.19). Notice also that in Mark it is “the disciples” that ask the meaning of the parable. Matthew often specifies Peter; in this case it was Peter who had specially to deal with the question afterwards (see Acts 10).
In the second section (21-28; parallel, Mark 7.24-30) Jesus goes away to “the district of Tyre and Sidon”, two cities of Phoenicia, now Lebanon. It is not clear from this whether he actually went to the Gentile country or only went “towards” there—the original can bear either sense. As one commentator put it, “He departed to escape from the Pharisees to a place of safety and peace. A conflict was inevitable, but he would choose his own time.” News of his teaching and works had spread abroad, and a woman of that region comes to seek healing for her daughter, who is vexed by a demon. The mother is greatly afflicted by her daughter’s suffering, and cries aloud for help, much to the annoyance of the disciples. Jesus however makes no response.
To the disciples Jesus says, “I have not been sent, except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Compare his words to them when he sent them out: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles … but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 10.5-6). Some commentators suggest that this is not a case of exclusivity, but of priority in time: the word is to come to Israel first. “In the Messianic age the gathering of Israel must precede and preparte for the gathering of the nations.”
It is impossible to guess at the inner thoughts that underly Jesus’ repartee in the scene that follows, which certainly seems harsh enough. Some say that it was meant to elicit a declaration of the woman’s faith. Perhaps it was meant to show the unreasonableness of an ideological rejection of her plea for help. However that may be, the woman is remarkable not only for her faith but for her wit: she gives as well as she gets. Her faith, as well, contrasts with the Pharisees who would not accept the teaching of Jesus. The passage also shows that, just as it is wrong to call any food unclean, so it is wrong to call any people “dogs”.

Commemorations this Week

20th August: The Memorial of Bernard, Abbot of Clairveaux, 1153. Bernard was a leader of the spiritual revival and reform of the monastic life and the whole Church