Pentecost 21, Year A (2020)

Proper 25 :: Leviticus 19: 1–2, 15–18 / Psalm 1 / I Thessalonians 2: 1–8 / Matthew 22: 34–46

This is the homily given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania by Fr. Gene Tucker on Sunday, October 25, 2020.

“BLENDING DETAILS WITH THE WIDER PICTURE”

(Homily text: Matthew 22: 34-46)

With today’s Gospel text, the arguments and disputes that the Lord has been having with His adversaries, the chief priests, the Pharisees, the scribes and the Herodians, come to an end. Today’s text describes the back-and-forth with, this time, the Pharisees, one of whom is described as a “lawyer” (who would have been, most likely, a scribe).[1]

Our text this morning divides into two parts: The first part describes the Pharisees’ question about the Law of Moses. They want to know which is the most important commandment to be found there. Then, Jesus turns the tables on His questioners, and asks them about the identity of the Messiah.

In both cases, it seems to me, the Lord works to widen the focus of the Pharisees, for these Pharisees are the sort of people who focus in on minute details, but who manage to miss the wider picture as they do so.

Let’s explore this idea a little.

The Pharisees’ question may have come from their preoccupation with the details of the Law. After all, they are the ones who seem to be preoccupied with the smallest bit of those requirements. For example, they are concerned that no one should walk further on the Sabbath than the Law allows. They are concerned, also, with numerous other, added, requirements, requirements of their own creation, like the washing of pots and so forth.

Perhaps, then, we could surmise what they might have been thinking as they ask the Lord to tell them which is the greatest commandment of the Law. Maybe their thinking went like this: “Our estimation is that the greatest commandment is the proper and faithful observance of all the ceremonies that take place in the Temple.” Or, perhaps they thought, “Our concern is that people observe the Sabbath in every way, for that is one way that we exhibit our identity as Jews, those who are faithful descendants of Abraham.”

We don’t know for sure what their answers to their own question would be, but we can guess with some certainty about their thinking, based on the responses that Jesus offers to their thinking and their behavior in different circumstances.

Jesus’ response quotes Deuteronomy 6:5, and it summarizes all the requirements of the Law, casting those requirements in terms of love: Love for God, and love for others.

So, for example, one would want to faithfully worship in the Temple out of love for God. One would want to give generously to the poor out of love for one’s neighbor.

But that sort of thinking and that sort of doing seemed to be a foreign idea to the Pharisees, for the picture we get of them is that they are into judgment and hate, not love.

But these Pharisees should have been motivated by the requirement to love, for Deuteronomy 6:5 was required to be recited twice a day, every day. The text would have been, no doubt, familiar to them.

Jesus recasts the requirements of the Law, seeking to get these recalcitrant Pharisees to see things from a larger, more comprehensive perspective.

In the same way, Jesus turns the tables on the Pharisees, asking them about the identity of the Messiah.

In so doing, Jesus challenges them to see the Messiah in a much larger context, and eternal context, the sort of context that God challenges us to see.

Again, we can speculate about the Pharisees’ concept of the Messiah might have been, but I think our guess might be somewhat reflective of reality. Perhaps those Pharisees were waiting for a charismatic figure would ride into Jerusalem on a white horse, leading a large army whose work would be to throw out the occupying Romans and restore the kingdom to Israel in the same way that it had existed a 1,000 years before under Kings David and Solomon.

Many Jews in that time harbored such an image and expectation of the Messiah.

But Jesus recasts their vision, reforming it into a timeless plan, a plan which emanates from God himself.

The vehicle for Jesus’ reformed vision is Psalm 110:1, and Jesus uses this verse to inform the Pharisees that David, writing so long ago, calls the coming One his “lord”. How then, Jesus asks, can the Messiah be David’s son (as the Pharisees have just claimed) if David calls the Messiah “lord”?

I think the point here is that time is erased when David’s pronouncement and the Messiah are considered. God’s timing, God’s plan, come into view, and the purview which results is much wider than the narrow conceptions of the Pharisees.

What might all of this prompt us to consider?

Perhaps this: Life is often lived in and among the details of things. Everyday stuff consists, oftentimes, of details. But it’s possible to get lost in the weeds of the details, only to lose sight of the big picture of things.

For we live our lives in the sight of God, every single detail of life being known to Him. That tells us that the details are important, they matter. But so does the great, big picture of God’s will and God’s intent for our lives and for the world.

Mature Christian living requires seeing both the details and the big picture, all at the same time, incorporating one into the other.

AMEN.

---

[1]   Since this final showdown takes place with the Pharisees and with a scribe (lawyer), today’s text leads naturally into chapter twenty-three, which records seven of Jesus’ “woes”, which are directed against the scribes and the Pharisees.

Pentecost 20, Year A (2020)

Proper 24 :: Isaiah 45: 1–7 / Psalm 99 / I Thessalonians 1: 1–10 / Matthew 22: 15–22

This is the homily given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania by Fr. Gene Tucker on Sunday, October 18, 2020.

 “SEPARATION”

(Homily text: Matthew 22: 15–22)

The back-and-forth between the Lord and His adversaries, the chief priests, the Pharisees and the scribes that has been the focus of our Gospel texts for the past few Sundays, is about to come to an end.

In today’s appointed Gospel text, Jesus effectively does a “slam dunk” on the Pharisees, who are out to try to trap Him with a question about paying taxes to the governing Romans, so that they can turn Him in on some charge or another.

Jesus’ retort to the Pharisees is probably most familiar to us in an older translation. In fact, it’s enough of a well-known statement that it has entered our everyday speech. It goes like this: “Render unto Caesar….”

Let’s look at the interchange between Jesus and the Pharisees from the perspective of separation.

We’ll begin with the Pharisees.

We would do well to remind ourselves about the Pharisees, in order to better understand just what their values were, and how they behaved.

The Pharisees were a lay group of people who advocated strict observance of the Law of Moses (Torah). They attempted, by their own observance of the Law, to separate themselves from the everyday world as much as possible. Our Lord describes them in very inglorious terms, calling them “white-washed tombs”, who are full of dead men’s bones, even though their outward appearance is quite pleasing. (See Matthew 23:27.)

But the Pharisees were capable of setting aside their desire to be separate from the messiness of everyday life when the necessity arose. For example, they harbored no love for the occupying Romans. Neither did they particularly like the Herodian family, who were the puppet kings that the Romans had installed many years before. (After all, the Herodian family was of mixed ancestry, so – like the Samaritans, who were also racially mixed – they were regarded with disdain by the racially “pure” Pharisees.) However, in this instance, they partnered with the Herodians (a party which allied itself with the interests of the Herodian family) to try to trap Jesus with their question about paying taxes to Caesar.

Here, then, is the irony: The Pharisees, whose outward behavior marked them as being separate from the world, betrayed their inner identity, which was very much in line with the values of the secular world they so much tried to avoid.

Jesus’ response, however, points to a different king of separation.

Taking a coin that was used to pay the tax, He asks whose image appears on the coin. The Pharisees answer, “Caesar’s”.

Jesus then says that the things that belong to Caesar should be given to Caesar, and the things that belong to God should be given to God.

What a masterful response! There is no retort possible to the Lord’s answer.

The Lord’s response points to separation, but to connection, as well.

If we are to reposition the Lord’s response about the necessity of “rendering unto Caesar” in a contemporary context, we might come to the conclusion that the Lord is instructing us that we are to remain engaged in the world around us. It strikes me that the implication in the Lord’s command informs us that the everyday world is important to Him, and to the Father. Unlike the Pharisees, who would just as soon ignore or deny their duty to be engaged in the everyday messiness of life, Jesus instructs us to do our part to bring about the kingdom of God, beginning with that everyday, messy world. After all, that’s what Jesus did and does….He healed the sick, cared for the outcasts, and tended to the everyday challenges of life. We, too, are called to do the same.

In so doing, we are to keep our focus squarely on God, giving God thanks and praise, giving of ourselves, our abilities, our talents and our treasures so that the kingdom can come in all its fulness and power. That sort of separation from the secular is critical, if we are to discern what God would have us do in the world. Put another way, what we are to do is to look closely at God, discern what God would have us to do, and then turn toward the world, armed with God’s will.

So, if we look back at the Pharisees’ actions, we see that they valued separation, but were willing to set that separation aside if necessity demanded it. Their willingness to compromise the mandates of Torah demonstrates an unhealthy attitude toward God’s commands to live an upright and holy life.

Our Lord’s example of separation, however, informs us of the necessity of remaining in close connection to God, in order that our work in the world may be informed by our focus on God.

AMEN.       

Pentecost 19, Year A (2020)

Proper 23 :: Isaiah 25: 1–9 / Psalm 106: 1–6, 19–23 / Philippians 4: 1–9 / Matthew 22: 1–14

This is the homily given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania by Fr. Gene Tucker on Sunday, October 11, 2020.

“GOD’S INVITATION AND OUR RESPONSE”

(Homily text: Matthew 22: 1–14)

Imagine that you’ve received an invitation to a ball or a wonderful dinner. The invitation reads, “Men: Black Tie”. (I think such invitations rarely, if ever, mention dress expectations for women….women seem to have more choices in terms of dress for such occasions than men do.)

From the comment about the expectation that a black tie will be worn, one could surmise that the event to which you’ve been invited is a special event, one not to be missed. The evening promises to be an extraordinary one.

Upon receiving this invitation, you have two responses/choices to make: One has to do with responding to the invitation: You must decide to either accept, ignore, or reject the invitation. The other response – assuming you’ve decided to attend - has to do with getting your formal, black tie, outfit together. (At this juncture, I can’t resist relating an experience I had when I attended just such a function some time ago….I wore clericals to the event, and one person who knows me pretty well, pointed out my clerical collar and made a remark about my “black tie”, adding that, “There’s one in every crowd who doesn’t get the message.” Of course, he was joking.)

The scenario I’ve just offered is, essentially, an updated version of our Lord’s Parable of the Wedding Feast.  (Weddings in the time of our Lord’s earthly ministry were wonderful, unique and special affairs….wedding celebrations might last the better part of an entire week, and they were – in what was an otherwise difficult and trying time to be alive – probably one of the few occasions for joy and celebration that life offered.)

What to do with the invitation to the wedding feast? Our Lord tells us that those who were invited basically ignored the invitation. They were, it seems, too preoccupied with their own lives and their own pursuits to bother to respond.

In response, the host says that the wedding feast, in order for it to be a proper feast, must have attendees, and lots of them. So the host says that the servants should go out into the roads and the byways and invite any and all they encounter.

What a radical move to make!  Invite anyone the servants just happen to meet, and not just the favored few who’d been invited in the first place? Reminds one of God’s unlimited love, doesn’t it? (I suspect that is Jesus’ point, exactly.)

In the context of Matthew’s church’s life, perhaps late in the first century, which may have been composed of both Jews and Gentiles, this parable must have spoken clearly and loudly to them, for they are the ones who’ve responded to the invitation to the feast. And, they – in the case of the Gentiles – weren’t the ones who were originally invited. They are latecomers to the feast, but they’ve been invited despite their racial, ethnic or national background. (In the first century, such an idea – especially to Jews – was a radical idea. I submit to you that – in some ways – it’s still a radical idea.)

God issues you and me an invitation to come to the feast. God issues such an invitation to every single person. But, just as the parable makes clear, a response is necessary. One cannot enjoy the benefits of coming to the feast without an RSVP.

Beyond our initial acceptance of the invitation to come to the feast, we realize that God will invite us, again and again, to take part in other aspects of being a part of the feast. Such invitations might take the form of responding to God’s call to take up some sort of a ministry. The invitations might entail changing one’s life trajectory or career in order to respond to the invitation to go and serve. Or, the invitations might cause us to see ways in which we can serve the Lord of the feast right where we are, when we are. It is incumbent on us, then, to prepare to be properly attired and fitted out for the ministry that God invites us to undertake.

Responding to the invitation begins the process of being allowed into the hall where the celebration will take place. That’s our choice to make, or to ignore. Ignoring the invitation doesn’t permit us to enter in.

So, come Holy Spirit, open our eyes to see God’s invitation, enable our wills to accept it, and empower us to come into the feast, that we may enjoy its blessings and share those blessings with others.

AMEN.

Pentecost 18, Year A (2020)

Proper 22 ::  Isaiah 5: 1-7 / Psalm 19 / Philippians 3: 4b–14 / Matthew 21: 33–46

This is the homily given at St. John’s, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania by Fr. Gene Tucker on Sunday, October 4, 2020.

 

 “OUTWARD ACTION: A MATTER OF INWARD INTENT”

(Homily texts:  Isaiah 5: 1–7 & Matthew 21: 33–46 )

The chief priests and their allies, standing around the Lord in the temple during Holy Week, are having a rough time: Last week, we heard Jesus tell these leaders of the people that the ones they hated and looked down on the most, the tax collectors and the prostitutes, were going to enter the kingdom of God before they did. Now, this week, the Lord lays out His Parable of the Tenants, which is meant to describe the true intent of the chief priests, who should have been exemplar examples of faithful stewardship of God’s people.

In Holy Scripture, vineyards are often used to describe God’s people. We hear it in today’s Old Testament reading from Isaiah. It is also found in Psalm 80:8 – 18. Jesus picks up this imagery in today’s parable.

The basic problem which is described in today’s parable is one of ownership and one of stewardship, and one of inner intent and outward action.

God is the owner of the vineyard (and, yes, we could also say, its designer). The chief priests and their allies are simply to care for what belongs to someone else, to God.

Jesus hits at the basic problem with the attitudes and the actions of the chief priests and their allies, for they’ve mistaken stewardship with ownership. No, the vineyard doesn’t belong to them, no matter how much they might try to take it by force, the vineyard belongs to someone else (God).

It would be acceptable, I think, to think that the caretakers of the vineyard had been hired, and had maintained their position as stewards, by some early indication of their trustworthiness and reliability. But somewhere along the line, they betrayed that trust, placed in them earlier on.

What’s going on in the parable is a basic truth: Inner dispositions of the heart are often manifested in outward actions.

Jesus will cite this truth in another way. He said, “…what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. (Matthew 15:18 – 19)

St. Paul will pick up this theme. Writing to the early Christians in Ephesus, he says, “…to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to pun the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians 4:23 – 24)

In truth, in order to live lives of integrity (defined, in this case, as a life whose outward actions reflect one’s inner dispositions and orientation toward God), we will need the help of the Holy Spirit.

Our role in working with the Spirit is to be open to the Spirit’s work within us. We can open the door for that to happen, in order that we might be faithful caretakers of God’s vineyard in our time and place.

AMEN.