Pentecost 9, Year B (Proper 12)

Proper 12 -- II Kings 4: 42-44; Psalm 24; Ephesians 3: 14-21; John 6: 1-21

A homily by Fr. Gene Tucker, given at St. John’s Church, in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, on Sunday, July 26, 2015.

“MEETING OUR NEEDS”

(Texts:  II Kings 4: 42–44 & John 6: 1-21)

Two of our Scripture readings for this morning have to do with feeding large groups of people with meager resources...in our Old Testament reading, we hear that the prophet Elisha is able to feed a hundred people with just some barley loaves and a sack of fresh ears of grain.  And in our gospel reading, we hear that Jesus is able to feed a large crowd of some 5,000 people with just five barley loaves and two fish.[1]  In each of these cases, there is food left over after everyone had eaten their fill.[2]

One of the great themes in the Bible has to do with God’s providing for His people’s needs.  For example, God provides safety for His people by leading them through the Red Sea into freedom.  He provides water from the rock for them in the wilderness.  He rains down manna on them from heaven in that same wilderness.  He rescues them from captivity in Babylon.  He opens the way to eternal life by raising Jesus from the dead.  We could cite many other examples that are found in the Bible.

Jesus seems to underscore the importance of our basic, daily needs in the model prayer that He gave us, that is, the Lord’s Prayer.  In one of the petitions, He teaches us to say, “Give us this day our daily bread.”

Our daily bread.

He specifies that our need for bread be supplied daily:  “This day”, He says, adding the words “daily bread”.

The Lord’s mention of bread brings to mind a much broader range of meanings than the matter of bread itself.  For example, bread is used as a metaphor for shared company, as in Psalm 41: 9, which reads, “Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me.”  Similarly, Acts 2: 42 tells us that the early Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”  In another sense, eating bread may equate to living one’s life, as when the priest Amaziah tells the prophet Amos to return to his home in Judah, and to “eat bread there, and to prophesy there.”

(Amos 7: 12)

If we are correct in equating the Lord’s instruction that we are to pray that God will give us our “daily bread” with God’s supplying of our needs on a daily basis, in order that we might live our lives, then two questions arise:

•          What do we need exactly? 

-and-

• Does God supply those needs in order for us to do something in return?

Let’s attempt an answer to both of these questions.

Our needs consist of those things that sustain our spiritual and physical lives. These two areas of concern are intertwined. 

On the spiritual plane, we are in need of hearing God’s word, and we are in need of being fed by the bread and the wine of the Holy Eucharist.  That’s what we are about when we gather together, as we are doing this morning.  We are following the example of the early Church by coming together to share in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of the bread and in the prayers, as Acts 2: 42 tells us.[3]

On the physical plane, we are in need of food (bread), clothing and shelter.  We also need social interaction with others.

As those needs are met, we are able to proclaim God’s goodness by what we say and by what we do.  In addition, as we come together as a Church, we are able to unite in common purpose for meeting the physical and spiritual needs of others in the world who do not have an active relationship with God.  Meeting these very practical, everyday needs, is an essential part of being able to share the Good News of God as we have come to know it in Jesus Christ.  The Letter of James states this reality quite well.  In James 2: 15, we read, “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘God in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?  So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”  As has been said, “The Church is the only institution known to humankind which exists for the benefit of those who are outside of it.”

We are called by virtue of our relationship with God, a relationship that is supported and strengthened by hearing and meditating on God’s holy Word and by regularly coming together in worship to receive the Body (bread) and Blood (wine) of Christ, to go out in witness to the world.  The strength we receive from our communion with the Lord enables us to do these things that God has called us to do.

A wonderful collect states these truths quite well.  It is the prayer that the Bishop prays over someone who has just renewed their commitment to Christ, and it may be found in the Book of Common Prayer on page 309.  It reads this way:

“Almighty God, we thank you that by the death and resurrection of your Son Jesus Christ you have overcome sin and brought us to yourself; and that by the sealing of your Holy Spirit you have bound us to your service.  Renew in these your servants the covenant you made with them at their Baptisms.  Send them forth in the power of that Spirit to perform the service you set before them; through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.  Amen.”

________________________________

[1]   The feeding of this large crowd must have been very important to the early Church, for all four gospel writers record this incident in their accounts.

[2]   Another account of a miraculous provision of food can be found in I Kings 17: 8 – 16, where the prophet Elijah and the family of the widow of Zarephath are fed with a jar of flour and a jug of oil for an extended period of time.

[3]  The baptismal covenant in the Book of Common Prayer, 1979, repeats the words of Acts 2: 42 exactly.  See page 304.

Pentecost 8, Year B

Proper 11 -- Jeremiah 23: 1-6; Psalm 23; Ephesians 2: 11-22; Mark 6: 30–34, 53-56

A homily by Fr. Gene Tucker, given at St. John’s Church, in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, on Sunday, July 19, 2015.

“EXPOSITION ON TODAY’S LECTIONARY”

(Texts:  Jeremiah 23: 1–6, Ephesians 2: 11-22 & Mark 6: 30–34, 53-56)

Introductory Remarks on Today’s Homily

An actual homily won’t be delivered today (unless this experiment, which is being called “Stump the Priest”, goes poorly, and no one in the congregation has comments or questions to pose concerning the lectionary for this morning, in which case I’ll make some comments which will be based on what is shown below).  Instead, we’re trying something new:  We’ve provided the parish with the three readings which are appointed for this morning, distributing them a couple of weeks ago, in order that those who’ve received them will have a chance to read them in depth, and to develop questions concerning one or more of the readings, or to share insights and comments on them.

A Comment about the Design of the Lectionary

Generally speaking, the Old Testament lesson shares something in common with the gospel which is appointed for the day.  In today’s cycle of readings, the lesson from Jeremiah deals with the “bad shepherds” of Judah, while the gospel reading from Mark records Jesus’ concern for God’s people, who are like “sheep without a shepherd”.  So the leaders of God’s people, that is, the “shepherds” are the connecting link of the Old Testament lesson and the gospel reading.

The epistle (letter) reading generally tracks in a separate way, and generally makes its way through most (or all) of a complete letter from the New Testament.

Sometimes the Psalm shares something in common with the Old Testament and the gospel readings.  One of the choices for today’s lectionary is Psalm 23, which begins with the words “The Lord is my shepherd.”

On occasion, the Collect for the Day is well matched to one or more of the appointed readings.  That isn’t so much the case with today’s collect.

Jeremiah 23: 1 – 6

The setting of Jeremiah

Jeremiah lived during an extremely troubled time.  He was living in Jerusalem before and during the conquest of the Southern Kingdom of Judah at the time when the city was overrun by the Babylonians in 586 BC.  Called into his prophetic ministry in about the year 627 BC, his ministry spanned about 40 years.   He was from a priestly family.  Many scholars call Jeremiah the “weeping prophet” because of the very sad nature of his life and the situations he addressed during his ministry.  Jeremiah spoke against the ruling class, the false prophets (who assured everyone that “all is well”), and the priests of the temple, warning them that their ignorance of the political, military and religious situation they were faced with would result in catastrophe.  Jeremiah survived the conquest of Jerusalem and was among those who made their way to Egypt following the fall of the city.

Today’s reading

In the previous chapter, Jeremiah has warned about the fate of Judah’s king, Zedekiah, who, Jeremiah says, will be carried off into a foreign land by Nebuchadnezzer of Babylon.  Then, beginning with today’s reading, he says that, despite the misdeeds of Zedekiah and the leaders of God’s people, God Himself will bring those who have been driven out of the land back to it.  This prophecy was fulfilled in 538 BC, when King Cyrus of Persia (who had conquered the Babylonians) allowed the first returnees to make their way back to Jerusalem.  The phrase “The Lord is our Righteousness” is a play on the meaning of Zedekiah’s name….in today’s passage, Jeremiah predicts that God will lead His people rightly and with their best interests at heart, in contrast to the actions of the king and their false leaders.

Ephesians 2: 11 – 22

The Setting of Ephesians

Ephesus was a major port city in Asia Minor, and the location of a pagan temple of the goddess Artemis.  The city’s ruins are still quite impressive to be seen today (in western Turkey).  Most letters in the Bible, along with most of the writings of the prophets, deal with specific situations.  In Ephesians, St. Paul reminds the readers (and hearers, for Paul’s letters were read aloud to the churches to whom he wrote) of his letter that Jesus Christ possesses sole authority over all things, not only in this world, but in the world which is to come, so that those who have come to faith in Christ will be encouraged to remember that allegiance to Christ stems from Christ’s own choosing of them before the world ever came to be.  Accordingly, allegiance to Christ surpasses all other allegiances in terms of its truth and its importance.  Paul’s aim seems to be to strengthen the Ephesians’ resolve to be faithful to Christ in the midst of an overwhelming pagan culture.

Today’s reading

Ephesus was much like most major cities and communities of the Roman Empire, in that it had a significant population of Jews living in it, living alongside Gentiles.  Since the early Church originally preached the Good News of Jesus Christ only to Jews, it was natural that some Jews would come to faith in Christ as a result.  However, in the Book of Acts (11: 20ff) we read that this Good News was beginning to be preached to Gentiles, as well.  Eventually, both Paul and Barnabas reported on the successes of their preaching among the Gentiles to the Church, which set off a major dispute among the believers.  The dispute centered around the need for converts to become faithful Jews in every respect, following the requirements of the Law of Moses (the Torah):  Did non-Jewish converts need to adhere to all the requirements of the Law, or not?  A council was called to deal with the matter, which met in Jerusalem in 49 AD.  Their deliberations and the decisions they reached can be found in Acts, chapter 15.  But the decision of the council, that Gentile Christians need not become faithful practitioners of Torah, did not entirely settle the matter.  St. Paul is forced to write a letter to the Galatian Christians some years after the Council of Jerusalem, attempting to quell the unrest that a group of unknown persons (who are called “Judaizers”) were attempting to do in convincing Gentile believers that they had to follow the requirements of Torah.

So Paul addresses the mixed congregation of the early Church in Ephesus, reminding them that, in Christ, they had all become one in the Lord.  Old distinctions and the former ways of regarding each other had been supplanted and surpassed by a new reality, for all of them had become one in Christ.  Note especially that Paul uses the words “circumcision” and “uncircumcision”, terms which were prominent points of discussion at the Council of Jerusalem, to refer to Jews and to Gentiles.

Mark 6: 30 – 34, 53 – 56

The setting of Mark

Scholars generally agree that Mark’s gospel account was the first written account of the life, teachings, suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Mark’s account may date from about the year 65 AD, in which case it may have been written not long after the first organized persecution of Christians took place under the Emperor Nero in 64 AD.  The early Church historian, Eusebius (260 – 340 AD), records the testimony of Bishop Papias (who was Bishop of Hierapolis, c. 120 AD), who tells us that Mark’s source of information was St. Peter himself.  Papius tells us that Mark recorded Peter’s recollections of the Lord, “though not in order”, of the events as they unfolded in the Lord’s ministry.  Mark’s account is the briefest by a good measure.  Mark’s writing style is filled with action verbs, and makes frequent use of the words “amazed” and “immediately”. 

Today’s reading

Today’s lectionary parcels up chapter six of Mark’s account.  It omits Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000 (verses 35 – 43, and His walking on the water of the Sea of Galilee (verses 44 – 52). (A parenthetical remark is in order here:  Sometimes, portions of a passage of Scripture are omitted because the omitted portions tend to be offensive.  So whenever verses are omitted, it is important to look at those omitted verses to see if they pertain to the lectionary reading overall.  If they do, it’s important to re-insert them into the reading for the service, as the Prayer Book allows us to do….the meaning of today’s gospel reading isn’t materially affected by the omission of Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000 and His walking on the water.)  Despite the omission of these two events, the resulting gospel reading continues to retain unity of meaning.  That meaning has to do with Jesus’ compassion for the people of His day.  He notes that they are like “sheep without a shepherd”.  In the Lord’s day, the leadership of God’s people was manifestly corrupt.  Not unlike the false shepherds of Jeremiah’s day, these false leaders (the puppet king Herod, the temple priests, and the Pharisees) tended to look after their own interests, putting the people’s welfare aside.  Life 2,000 years ago was hard, it was short (for most people), and daily assaults by sickness, debilitating taxation, brutal Roman rule, and strict-but-lifeless adherence to the slightest and smallest details of the Law all added up to create a heavy burden for the people.

Into such a situation God sends His Son, bringing genuine concern for the daily lives of the people, conquering illness, feeding those who are hungry, and offering them the true righteousness of the Lord.  In this last understanding, Jesus fits the description that the prophet Jeremiah had foretold.  So then, by comparing the passage from Jeremiah with Jesus’ actions in our gospel reading this morning, we can see that the adage, “The New (Testament) is in the Old (Testament) concealed, the Old (Testament) is in the New (Testament) revealed.”

Pentecost 7, Year B

Proper 10 -- Amos 7: 7-15; Psalm 85: 8-13; Ephesians 1: 3-14; Mark 6: 14-29

This  homily was given by Fr. Gene Tucker at St. John’s Church in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, on Sunday, July 12, 2015.

“OF PROPHETS, PROPHECIES AND WHISTLE BLOWERS”

“Oh seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, earn your bread there, and prophesy there; but never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom.”

No one likes a prophet.

No one likes to hear prophecy.

No one likes to hear God’s truth, spoken in judgment, for that is what prophecy is.

No one likes a whistleblower.

When I was in the Army, one of the most dreaded words those of us who were in leadership positions ever wanted to hear was:  “Someone has filed an IG (Inspector General) complaint.”

Inspectors General (IGs) are the maintainers of truth.  They function as independent agents whose task it is to ferret out wrongdoing, improper practices and behavior, and corruption.  The prophets of old were the whistle blowers of their day.

And so, today, we have before us two of the great prophets of old:  Amos, who lived in the eighth century BC, and John the Baptist (or Baptizer), who lived at the time of Jesus.

Both of these whistleblowers speak against the corruption that existed in the high places of their day:  Amos speaks against the Northern Kingdom of Israel and its corrupt king, Jeroboam II, and John the Baptist speaks out against the corrupt puppet king, Herod Antipas.

To gain some perspective, it would be well for us to trace the history of the times in which these two prophets lived.

We can begin with Amos’ situation.  In order to understand his situation more fully, let’s back up about 200 years into history:

When King Solomon died in the year 930 BC, the united kingdom that he, his father David, and Saul had ruled over split in two.  The ten tribes in the north separated from the two tribes in the south.  The ten tribes formed the nation of Israel, sometimes called the Northern Kingdom.  The two tribes in the south formed the nation of Judah, sometimes called the Southern Kingdom.

In the south, Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, was king.  His throne was in Jerusalem, and the temple which his father had built remained the center of the religious life of the kingdom.

In the north, however, the situation was very different:  The Northern Kingdom was ruled by Jeroboam I, who reigned from 930 – 910 BC.  Jeroboam set up centers of worship which featured golden calves[1].  In addition to this practice, which adopted some of the ways of the Canaanites who had lived in the land before God’s people came from Egypt to take possession of it, Jeroboam also altered the seasons which the Law of Moses had established.  Finally, Jeroboam I also established a priestly class which was not drawn from the tribe of Levi.  So a completely different way of worshiping was established.  Moreover, it was a way of worshiping not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not the way of the Law of Moses (the Torah) but it was the way of idolatrous worship.

From there, things go downhill steadily until the time of King Jeroboam II, who ruled over the Northern Kingdom from 781 – 753 BC.  By the eighth century, and from all outward appearances, things were going well for the Northern Kingdom (and for the Southern Kingdom, as well): The kingdom enjoyed a period of peace with its neighbors, and the economy was doing well.  But underneath this patina of good fortune was another, ugly truth:  The ruling class exploited the poor and the underclass, using false weights in their trading, and ignoring their plight.  While those in power reclined on ivory beds, their poorer neighbors suffered terribly.

It is against this thoroughly corrupt situation that God calls Amos to go from the Southern Kingdom of Judah to speak God’s judgment against the people of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

Talk about a lonely occupation:  Can you imagine such a call coming from God?  Put into today’s terms, such a call might go something like this:  “Your name, I want you to go North Korea and tell their ruler that his ways are corrupt.”  I think, if I got such a call, I might be tempted to say in response, “But, Lord, they’ll kill me if I go to do that!”

That pretty well sums up the task that Amos was called to undertake:  To go to the enemy and tell them that they’re all messed up, and that, unless they straighten up, the good times that they think they will last a long time are about to come to an end.  Of course, history tells us that Amos’ prediction came true, for the Assyrians swept into the Northern Kingdom and destroyed it in the year 722 BC, deporting most of its population in the process.

So that is Amos’ situation.  Amos is an independent voice, speaking the truth to power.  That is the prophet’s task, oftentimes.  The prophet’s voice is the voice of the whistle blower.  No one likes a whistle blower.

John the Baptist is a very similar situation some 800 years (nearly) later:  The people in the Holy Land are living under oppressive Roman occupation.  The Romans had established a dynasty of puppet kings, of which King Herod the Great (who ruled from 37 – 4 BC.  Upon his death, the area he ruled over was divided among three of his sons.  One of these sons, Herod Antipas, is the subject of our gospel reading from Mark, heard this morning.  Herod Antipas ruled as a puppet king from 4 BC – 39 AD.

The Herodian dynasty was marked by all sorts of immorality, of which the birthday party which Mark describes is an example.  No doubt, the dance which was performed by Herodias’ daughter[2], was an exotic dance (it would be “X rated” today).  Furthermore, the Herodians engaged in a culture of easy marriage and divorce, that is to say, they would divorce one partner in order to marry another.  It is this practice that John speaks against.

Prophets are unpopular.  Speaking truth to power can cost a person his/her head, as it did, literally, for John.

The voice of prophecy isn’t a welcome voice, for who among us wants to hear that God’s judgment is that we have fallen short of His expectations of us?

But the voice of the prophet is an essential voice.  It is the voice of the whistle blower, a voice which ferrets out corrupt practices, a voice which calls us to account for the ways in which we live, in which we think, in which we act.

The prophet’s voice may come from an unexpected place, from a person who – by normal human standards – is a “nobody”, as Amos was.  Amos describes himself not as a prophet, but as a dresser of sycamore trees and as a shepherd.  Amos was an ordinary, common person by the standards of his day.

The prophet’s voice comes, born out of independence from the accepted ways by which things are ordered.  The prophet’s voice calls us to amend our ways, to live as God would have us live.

The prophet’s voice may arise as we read the pages of sacred Scripture.  It may arise as we commune with God in prayer.  It may arise through the promptings of the Holy Spirit, whose power to enlighten and convict weigh heavily on us.  It may arise through faithful preaching of God’s word.  It may arise when – out of nowhere (seemingly) and from a totally unexpected source – someone will say something to us that rings with the truth of God’s prophetic voice.

As uncomfortable as it is to be in the presence of a prophet, and to hear the prophet’s voice, we stand in continual need of the prophet and the prophet’s voice.

May we, through the power and influence of the Holy Spirit, be enabled to recognize the words of the prophet and to amend our ways accordingly.

AMEN.

[1]   The presence of the golden calves is reminiscent of Aaron’s disobedience in fashioning a golden calf at the base of Mt. Sinai as Moses was receiving the law from God at the top of the mountain.  See Exodus 32: 1–35.

[2]   Neither Mark nor Matthew, both of whom describe this birthday party in their gospel accounts (see Matthew 14: 1–12) name Herodias’ daughter.  We learn that her name was Salome from the first century historian, Josephus.  This birthday party and Salome’s performance became the subject of a play written by Oscar Wilde in 1891.  Richard Strauss also wrote an opera by the same name, based on Wilde’s play, in 1905.

Pentecost 6, Year B

Proper 9 -- Ezekiel 2: 1-5; Psalm 123; II Corinthians 12: 2-10; Mark 6: 1-13

A homily by Fr. Gene Tucker given at St. John’s Church, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, on Sunday, July 5, 2015.

“AN EXTRAORDINARY HUMAN BEING,
OR SOMETHING MORE?”

(Homily text:  Mark 6: 1 - 13)

“Where did this man get all this?  What deeds of power are being done by his hand!  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary….?

One of the joys of getting older is to be able to see children grow to be teenagers, and then to become young adults.  Along the way, we encourage and expect them to discover what their talents are, and to develop those skills and abilities through education and training.

Imagine seeing a person who’s been known to us as a child, as a teenager, and then as an adult, return to his/her hometown after a period of time away, bearing new skills and abilities.  When the process of acquiring those skills and abilities is known to us, we rejoice in the process that has brought the person to the place where they are today.  But imagine, conversely, that the individual returns, claiming new skills and abilities, but without the attendant training and education.  We might wonder where those abilities actually came from, and if those new aspects of the person’s identity are genuine or not.

Jesus’ newly acquired skills, which seem to come out of nowhere, seem to prompt the expressions of disbelief that the residents of Nazareth voiced as Jesus returns to town.

Those who knew Him as a boy, as a young man, and then as an adult can’t get past what they have known about Him up to this point to see beyond that experience to see what God has been doing through the works and teachings He has been doing.  They acknowledge the great things He has been doing, saying, “What deeds of power are being done by his hand.”  But they preface that remark by asking, “Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary?”

The norms of society which were in place 2,000 years ago might shed some light on the residents of Nazareth as they deride Jesus.

For one thing, the oldest son of the family[1] was expected to assume the role of leadership if the father in the family died.  It’s possible that Joseph has now died by the time that Jesus returns to Nazareth.  If so, perhaps Jesus’ family has suffered some degree of shame because it seems as though that oldest son (Jesus) has abandoned his proper role to go off engaging in an itinerant preaching ministry.

For another, it was customary (and expected) that a rabbi in Jesus’ day would have a practical skill, in addition to his teaching ministry.  Consider the situation that St. Paul was in:  He was a tent maker, in addition to having studied under the great rabbi Gamaliel in Jerusalem.  Jesus had a practical skill, that of being a carpenter[2].  But so far as the residents of His hometown knew, He hadn’t gone off to become a disciple of any famous rabbi.  This may be the reason that they question His credentials.

The incident we are considering today serves the purpose of telling us something about Jesus, in much the same way a character in a play, a movie or a book would become known to us by the interactions with other people, and by the responses that situations prompt in that character.

Jesus’ character is made known to us as we discover that those who knew Him best in His earlier life with them in Nazareth find it hard to get past what they already know about Him in order to come to a fuller and newer understanding about His character and purpose.

Applying that concern to ourselves, the task we are faced with is to assess what we already know about Jesus, and then to come to a fuller understanding of who He is.  We are called to move beyond thinking of Jesus as simply a great and fascinating human being who did great works of mercy, who did great acts of loving kindness, and who left us with a legacy of great teachings, in order that we might come to see that, in Jesus, God is revealing His very self to us, for Jesus is the “image of the invisible God,” as we read in Colossians 1: 15.

Such a quest, to come to know the Lord more fully, more deeply and more closely is a lifelong pursuit.  May the Holy Spirit empower and enable us in this quest.

AMEN.

---

[1]   Mark uses the words brother and sister to describe Jesus’ family.  In common usage in the first century, such terms could refer to a wide range of familial relationships.  Brother, for example, could indicate a sibling, a step brother, or even a cousin.  The same is true of the term sister, which could indicate a similar range of relationships.  Scholars have pondered the exact nature of the relationships between Jesus and those brothers who are named in today’s passage.  Some have posited the idea that Joseph was older than Mary, and that he was a widower prior to marrying Mary, having had children by that first marriage.  About the details of all this we cannot be sure this side of heaven.

[2]   The Greek word (tekton) which is usually translated as “carpenter” refers to anyone who worked with hard materials.  So it’s possible that Jesus was either a carpenter, or a stone mason.