Tag: In Christ

Suffering Evil to Resist Evil

“‘Dear Lord God, I wish to preach in your honor. I wish to speak about you, glorify you, praise your name. Although I can’t do this well of myself, I pray that you may make it good.’”[i]

Introduction

There’s a malignant and pervasive feature of Protestant Christian social and political ethic that goes like this: faith has nothing to do with the temporal realm, preaching is never supposed to be political, and obedience for obedience’s sake is law. Faith is only of and for the spiritual realm and has no activity in the temporal realm. There, in the temporal realm, the Protestant Christian is to, simply put, abide in obedience to temporal leaders and authorities, getting along nicely with others, and—if it so fits—proclaiming Christ in word to those who are without Christ by faith. There might be some room for actions of charity toward those less fortunate than we. However, when it comes to social action, even political response including resistance, the Protestant Christian is summoned into quietness and socio-political abstinence—our job is to obey whatever and whomever is in charge, bearing badges of model citizenry. The Christian is to endure passively all the actions of the temporal realm, no matter how gross and offensive they are; and not only endure but to advocate for such wayward temporal leadership and calling others into obedience. The tl/dr: faith is only about being saved from some future hell and has no legs, no arms, no hands, no words or deeds to act in the temporal realm; such action is only for those selected by God to lead, however they see fit.

I understand the impulse behind this notion of socio-political quietness and hyper-obedience. However, I also know that it’s an impulse built from a partial and thus inadequate understanding of Christian endurance in the face of violence and abuse. How we got to this quietness and hyper-obedience stems from an impoverished reading of Luther himself, a relentless influence from late 16th and early 17th century protestant and Lutheran scholars trying to further establish Protestantism and Radical Protestantism after Luther’s death, and, sadly, a corrupted reading of biblical texts like our passage from 1 Peter. While the first two are interesting and about which I would be more than happy to wax ineloquently, it’s the last one that is our focus.

1 Peter 2:19-25

For Peter, the important thing in Chapter 2 is that those who are stuck in the captivity of the institution of slavery with non-Christian masters,[ii] abide their unjust[iii] suffering when they do good.[iv] They are to direct their reverence to God and not to their earthly masters,[v] who might be taking perverse pleasure in unjustly punishing a slave for doing good.[vi] Peter writes, For this [is] grace if, through consciousness of God, one endures the unjust suffering of pain of body and mind. For what sort of fame [is it] if you endure when missing the mark and being treated harshly? But if doing good and suffering you will endure, this [is] grace in the presence of God (vv.19-20). Peter encourages his audience—people who are in slavery—to endure being mistreated when they do well. Peter credits this endurance under unjust suffering to the grace of God and the consciousness tuned in and toward God and God’s will.[vii] This endurance under unjust suffering won’t get one saved; this endurance under unjust suffering is evidence of being saved, for it is evidence that the grace of God is present and the one who has this grace of God by faith in Christ is in the presence of God by the power of the Holy Spirit. While the phraseology is exhausting and difficult,[viii] Peter is not emphasizing suffering as salvific; Peter is centering the idea that to endure is God in you enduring through you, thus, it is grace and God bearing the unjust suffering. Concurrently, this endurance of unjust suffering is not only a benefit to the person so enduring[ix] (tangible experience of the grace of God with them in this unjust suffering[x]), but it becomes a point of witness to and an exposing of the perpetrator of the unjust suffering.[xi] Patient endurance by the grace of God in the face of unjust suffering renders both the unjust suffering and the one committing it exposed and guilty.

Peter then brings up Christ’s suffering and death. He writes, for into this you were called, because Christ also suffered on behalf of you, leaving for you an example to be imitated so that you might devote yourself to his footprints, ‘he did not miss the mark and he was not found with deceit in his mouth’ (vv.21-22). For Peter, not only did Christ set an example for believers to follow, but Christ’s innocent suffering on behalf of becomes paradigmatic for believers, too. In other words, yes, Peter is making a correlation here between Christ’s work on the cross as “enduring unjust suffering” as participation in God’s mission in the world to save the world from captivity, indifference, and death—for these are present when one embarks on dolling out unjust suffering on an innocent person (or on any person). Peter yokes the believer not only to Christ, but in Christ underscoring that since their newborn[xii],[xiii] location is in Christ (like an address) they will—by God’s grace and with faith—walk in Christ’s footsteps, imitating them like a young child copies and traces over letters.[xiv] Refusing to make suffering itself salvific, Peter is practical in addressing his audience of slaves to pagans: beloved, you, too, are going to suffer unjustly…fear not, for you are not alone or lost; God not only goes with you but has gone before you.[xv] Peter is emphasizing that by enduring unjust suffering for doing good, they will reinforce their identification with Christ.[xvi]

Peter drives this idea home by making the point[xvii] that this isn’t promotion of blind endurance to suffering but actively resisting revenge and retaliation.[xviii] Peter writes, When he was being abused, he was not abusing; when suffering he did not threaten; but he was handing [himself] over to the judge who judges justly (v.23). And this is the point of it all: foregoing retaliation and revenge while trusting in Abba God who is the just judge, the Judge who was judged in our place.[xix] Peter’s audience—familiar with just and unjust violence due to their station in life[xx]—is to see their endurance under unjust suffering as a way of mimicking and following in the example of Christ that has, like Christ’s work, tangible application and implication in the world. To seek revenge or to retaliate[xxi] is to take matters into one’s own hands and determine that both God is untrustworthy as judge and deny the efficacy of Christ’s work on the cross.[xxii]

Thus why Peter then adds, [xxiii]

He himself he carried up our sins/missing the mark in his body upon the wood/cross, for the purpose and result of removing/causing to be dead sins/missing the mark that we might live for righteousness; for by his wounds you were healed. For you were as sheep being misled, but now you were returned towards the shepherd and over seer of your souls (v.24-25).

It is not by the wounds endured in temporal unjust suffering that the slave is saved,[xxiv] but by the wounds of Christ who suffered on behalf of Peter’s audience[xxv]—Christ who suffered a death reserved for rebels and slaves (Peter drives home Christ’s identification with his audience).[xxvi] Thus, for Peter, they can endure for Christ’s sake and to the glory of God because Christ is the foundation of their salvation.[xxvii],[xxviii] For they were lost like sheep, says Peter, and found and returned to the fold of God, given new life, divine love, and enduring liberation—things denied slaves, people considered not to be people worthy of saving at all.[xxix] Through them, God will work to expose unjust suffering and the person causing the unjust suffering because God is a trustworthy and just judge; Christ’s resurrection is the demonstration that unjust suffering does not go unnoticed and unvindicated by God.[xxx]

Conclusion

So, what do we make of what Peter has written to his audience? There’s wisdom to be had here that resonates with both faith and socio-political praxis (these two are not in opposition). Can we not have faith and endure suffering and be an advocate against injustice without retaliating?[xxxi] I believe Martin Luther can help us here. In his treatise, Temporal Authority: To What Extent it Should be Obeyed, Luther writes about this very tension in the life of the Christian in the world,

…at one and the same time you satisfy God’s kingdom inwardly and the kingdom of the world outwardly. You suffer evil and injustice, and yet at the same time you punish evil and injustice; you do not resist evil, and yet at the same time, you do resist it. In the one case, you consider yourself and what is yours; in the other, you consider your neighbor and what is his. In what concerns you and yours, you govern yourself by the gospel and suffer injustice toward yourself as a true Christian; in what concerns the person or property of others, you govern yourself according to love and tolerate no injustice toward you neighbor. The gospel does not forbid this; in fact, in other places it actually commands it.[xxxii]

We—you and I—can turn the other cheek when unjust violence comes our way, enduring, as Peter exhorts, patiently by God’s grace and in faith and trust that God is who God says God is. What we cannot abide by, though, is when our neighbor is under attack—spiritually, emotionally, physically, mentally, psychologically, etc. We can let injustice directed toward us roll off our backs especially when it is for doing something good (and, these days, that “doing something good” is a rather low bar!), but we cannot let our neighbor suffer so. Just as Peter encourages us to walk in the way of the suffering Christ, he, without words, encourages those of us who are not immersed in and held captive by modern institutions of slavery to expose senseless and unjust violence for the sake of our neighbor and to the glory of God. We can suffer in a way that brings release from captivity, life where there is death, and love where there is indifference. In this way we walk in the footsteps of the Christ who redeemed us and liberated us through his death and resurrection. We love because God so loved us first (1Jn 4:19).

[i] LW 54:157-158; Table Talk 1590.

[ii] I. Howard Marshall, “1 Peter,” The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, eds. Grant R. Osborne, D. Stuart Briscoe, and Haddon Robinson, (Downers Grove: IVP Press, 1991), 87. Peter is addressing a crowd very familiar with overt slavery

[iii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 88. “This advice cannot have been easy to accept. Slaves could well suffer at the hands of their masters. Peter calls it unjust suffering. This contrasts with the view of many people who would have argued (like Aristotle) that, strictly speaking, one couldn’t be unjust to slave because slaves were not persons, but chattels and workhorses. This view was not universal (the Stoics repudiated it, for example). And naturally Christians recognized that slaves were people.”

[iv] Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter, TNICTNT, ed. F.F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 106. “Thus the motive for the submission and service is not their respect for their masters, but their respect for God, who receives the service as if it were done to him and whose name is honored by their good behavior. Therefore their submission is not bounded by their masters’ actions…but extends ‘to the unjust’….”

[v] Davids, First Epistle of Peter, 106. Slave’s “reverence or fear is directed to God, not to the masters, is indicated by the facts that (1) the phrase comes before the reference to the masters in the Greek word order, and (2) fear or reverence…in 1 Peter is always directed toward God, never toward people, whom Christians are not to fear…”

[vi] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 106. “Peter…is writing in a time of persecution in which slaves, who were under almost total control of their masters, would be especially vulnerable. He can make no assumptions that their masters will not take perverse delight in torturing a slave for his faith. Even in such a case the slave is to follow the teaching of Jesus and submit…”

[vii] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 107. “..it is more likely that ‘of God’ is to be understood as describing the character of the conscience, that is, one conscious of God and his instruction, as in the normal connection of God with conscience in the NT…even if Peter makes this connection in a grammatically difficult way. What he means, then, is that God is pleased with Christian slaves who bear up under unjust suffering, not because there is no other option or because of their optimistic character, but because they know this pleases God and conforms to the teaching of Jesus.”

[viii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 88. “Nevertheless, Peter says, it is possible to bear unjust suffering in a different way. When a person puts up with suffering because he is conscious of God, this is commendable. These two phrases are difficult to understand even if their general sense is clear.”

[ix] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 108. “This endurance is an act that finds favor with God, on which he smiles with approval. It is a deed of covenant faithfulness to the God who has extended grace to them…and as such leads to the paradoxical joy already mentioned in 1:6-7.”

[x] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 89. “It stands to reason that if slaves receive a physical beating or lashing because they have committed some misdemeanor or crime, there is no particular credit to them for it, even if they bear it patiently….However, if a slave endures suffering  that is undeserved—in deed, punishment actually inflicted for doing good—then this is a different story. This is commendable in the sight of God.”

[xi] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 108. “….there is a type of fame if one does good and suffers. In this situation one can show true endurance because it is wrongful suffering.”

[xii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 91. “…right from the opening phrase it is apparent that Peter is presenting far more than an example. He briefly tells the story of the Christ who suffered for you and develops a doctrine of Christ’s death that shows how Christians can be transformed to live for righteousness.”

[xiii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 92. “Christ has called them to a new way of life which involves patient suffering like his. As his followers, they must share his lot.”

[xiv] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 110. “…we are like a child placing foot after foot into the prints of his father in the snow, following a sure trail broken for him. But this trail of Christ includes suffering, not for our sins (he has already suffered ‘on your behalf’ in that respect), but as part of the pattern of life to which he has called us.”

[xv] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 114. “For slaves this was good news. They might be suffering; indeed, they might be suffering because of their faith. But they were not lost. Christ was with him, and they were under his care even if their present physical experiences were unpleasant.”

[xvi] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 111. “This teaching fits well as an encouragement to suffering slaves, for they are concerned about suffering for doing right. Jesus their lord was perfectly innocent in every way, they are reminded, and yet he suffered. Thus their innocent suffering can be part of their identification with Christ.”

[xvii] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 111.

[xviii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 90.

[xix] Ref. to Karl Barth’s CD 4.1

[xx] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 87-88. “Unlike Paul, who taught mainly slaves with Christian masters, Peter is concerned here with slaves working in the homes of pagan masters. In a Christian household the close contact of slaves and masters could lead to brotherhood ….In a pagan household this familiarity increased the possibilities of friction, especially if Christian slaves, who now believed themselves spiritually equal to their masters, tried to force their position. Whatever their situation, Christian slaves should fulfill their obligation to be subject to their masters. Whether their masters are gentle or perverse is not the point; the relationship demands obedience.”

[xxi] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 96. “Peter’s teaching also clearly states what is involved in following Christ. The pattern that must be followed is his refusal to retaliate when he was attacked.”

[xxii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 92-93. “Jesus modeled patient suffering for Christians to follow. The way in which he endured his suffering is the binding pattern that those who have been saved by the death of Christ must follow.”

[xxiii] Davids, First Epistle or Peter, 114. “For slaves this was good news. They might be suffering; indeed, they might be suffering because of their faith. But they were not lost. Christ was with him, and they were under his care even if their present physical experiences were unpleasant.”

[xxiv] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 92.

[xxv] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 92. “Jesus suffers as the Servant of Yahweh and fulfills his destiny to bear the sins of others and so bring them to God.”

[xxvi] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 94. “….Peter simply drives home the fact that Jesus really suffered physically. On the cross  may well allude to the fact that Christ shared the kind of execution which was normally reserved for slaves and rebels.”

[xxvii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 91. “….Christ cannot be an example of suffering for us to follow unless he is first of all the Savior whose sufferings were endured on our behalf.”

[xxviii] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 92.

[xxix] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 95.

[xxx] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 94. “The purpose of this sacrificial act, however, is not simply that we should be set free from the consequences of our sins. Perter sees it as an act which is meant to set us free form sin itself….”

[xxxi] Marshall, “1 Peter,” 90. “One can take actions against injustice and unjust structures in society without engaging in personal retaliation.”

[xxxii] Luther LW 45 96

Posted on by laurenlarkin 0

Totally and Utterly Human

Psalm 124:6-7 Blessed be Abba God! … We have escaped like a bird from the snare of the fowler; the snare is broken, and we have escaped. Our help is in the Name of Abba God…

Introduction

Over the course of the past few weeks, we’ve seen Jesus defend his disciples from the offense of unclean hands; it’s not what goes into a person that makes them clean or unclean, but what comes out (it’s a heart issue). We’ve seen Jesus break socio-religio-political boundaries by including an unclean, gentile woman in God’s mission and reign in the world. And last week, we saw Jesus reorient the disciples toward the mission of God and away from the ideologies and dogmas of humanity thriving off notions of human power and might: to be great in the reign of God is to identify with those who have no status or power in your society; in other words it means: to be human. Throughout all these stories, there’s a common thread: discipleship.

According to Mark, to follow Jesus out of the Jordan and to the cross demands a rather radical overhaul of both the believer’s inner and outer life. It’s not about obeying traditionalisms and arcane laws long expired only rendering the outside “clean”; it’s not about boundaries and political lines keeping some in and some out; and it’s not about greatness defined by humanity’s preferential option for status. (These things perpetuate the mythologies of the kingdom of humanity serving only those who are powerful while enslaving those who are not.) Discipleship is about having/receiving a new heart, new mind, new eyes, new ears, new language, and new actions. The disciple of Christ, like Christ, must endure being the epicenter of the conflict of the reign of God being born into the world fracturing the kingdom of humanity and putting things that are upside down, right-side up.

Mark’s Jesus hammers home that discipleship is not/never about dividing lines, in-group and out-group, us v. them; none of that divisionary thinking can exist among the disciples or within each disciple. The mission and reign of God is much bigger (and better) than anyone—yesterday, today, and tomorrow—can or will imagine. The thinking that belongs to the kingdom of humanity is small and divisive; for the disciples, they must think in line with the reign of God: big…cosmically and inclusively big.

Mark 9:38-50

And then John said to [Jesus], “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and were [unsuccessfully[1]] preventing him because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not prevent him, for no one—who will do a powerful work in my name—is also able to revile me quickly. For whoever is not against us, [is] for us. For whoever might give you a winecup of water because the name that you are of Christ, truly I say to you, by no means will they lose their reward.” (Mk 9:38-41)

Structurally, there’s no indication in the text that this moment is separated from where we left off last week. Thus, we can assume the same posture: Jesus is down low, the disciples are gathered around him, and a little child is in their midst. And then John speaks, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we were preventing him because he was not following us.” With this statement, it’s clear that the disciples still[2] don’t understand what it means to be disciples in the reign of God and of Christ.[3] The in-group/out-group way of thinking runs deep in the inner (and outer) lives of the disciples. When it comes to Christ, all traditional conceptions of human groupings are called into question.[4] So, the way Jesus replies to the group continues his teaching the disciples what the reign and mission of God (really) is about: It is completely inclusive and it promotes equity. The disciples need a more “welcoming [and open]” mindset[5] toward people who were not following them—which is the real offense for John;[6] anyone who is participating in the reign and mission of God in Christ’s name should not be hindered.[7] In other words, the ability to cast out demons in Jesus’s name[8] (which the Twelve failed at recently[9]) isn’t restricted to some special authority and status[10] the Twelve think they have because of their proximity to Jesus.[11]

Interestingly, when Jesus says, “Do not prevent him, for no one—who will do a powerful work in my name—is also able to revile me quickly. For whoever is not against us, [is] for us. For whoever might give you a winecup of water because the name that you are of Christ, truly I say to you, that by no means they might lose their reward.”, he’s not only broadening the mindset of the disciples, he’s (also) giving three reasons[12] why the disciples need not to be exclusive.

  1. The man is not an enemy; he’s performing exorcism in Jesus’s name thus associating himself with Jesus. Because of this association he will not be able to speak ill quickly of Jesus (et al);[13]
  2. Because of the in-group/out-group mentality expressed in John’s comments to Jesus, Jesus immediately stops cliquishness; it doesn’t belong to the reign of God;[14] and,
  3. The disciples should be kind; simple, kind acts done for those who bear Jesus’sname(i.e. giving a winecup of water) are significant and will be noticed[15] because it is service to Jesus, thus to God. Thus, they are actually with us (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) (pace John).[16]

In this way, anything done in the name of Christ and for those who bear Christ’s name is enough;[17] no further demonstration of belonging is needed.[18] In light of this deduction, Jesus exhorts the disciples not to be so prideful[19] that they quickly draw lines in the sand organizing who’s in and who’s out, “They are to be a church, not a sect.”[20]

Jesus then discusses causing one of these little ones (potentially drawing upon the image of the child in their midst and broadening it to those who believe in [Jesus] and can be taken advantage of[21]) to stumble; Jesus emphasizes, from a different angle, the dangers of the aforementioned “cliquishness” and elitism.[22] Each of the four sayings does not really offering anything more novel than the one before it except that the focus moves from causing someone else to stumble to causing one’s own self to stumble. All four sayings work together emphasizing how bad it is to get in the way of God’s Spirit at work in the world to bolster one’s human ideas of exclusion and inequality. Unlike the person who gives a cup of water to the followers, the person who causes someone to stumble deserves the opposite of reward. According to Mark’s Jesus, the one who causes another to stumble will be thrown into Gehenna known for “punishment of the ungodly,”[23] into the flames of the unquenchable fires (in Gehenna the fires burned continually because it was Jerusalem’s garbage dump[24],[25]) and where their worm does not die (ref. to Isaiah[26]). Through these intense images, Jesus exhorts his disciples to be alert and awake because threats lurk outside and within themselves.[27] Therefore, the disciples are exhorted to deal shrewdly with themselves rather than others because—most likely—the problem isn’t the hand, eye, foot, or someone else; it’s the heart[28] and its ability to be held captive to the kingdom of humanity because of pride, a desire for greatness, and status. Rather, the disciples are to be utterly committed to God[29] and God’s reign and mission in the world; this, so they can participate in God’s mission of justice and equity (which is peace[30]) as the beautiful, fragrant, salted sacrifices they are for the well-being of the neighbor and to the glory of God.[31]

Conclusion

Jesus is going to great lengths to make sure his disciples understand that the reign of God is nothing like the kingdom of humanity. God isn’t against humanity, in fact, according to Jesus and Paul Lehmann (quoted last week), God is about humanity, so much so that God transcended God’s self and became human. This was done to elevate humanity above what humanity was/is willing to settle for. And, frankly, that’s the problem with the kingdom of humanity: it regularly settles for less than. Jesus doesn’t want his disciples consumed with notions of greatness, privilege, power, and authority; these things make human beings less human. Jesus wants his disciples to see that their humanity is anchored to their dependence on God by faith in Jesus. The world, for Jesus, needs more simple, vulnerable human beings, not more dictators and despots.

The disciples are to always choose humanity over inhumanity; this is what it means to be dedicated to and participate in God’s mission and revolution of love, life, and liberation. Thus, what keeps the disciples human is taking seriously their role as representatives of God in the world and among their neighbors. Here, our faith in Christ and our dependence on God works itself out in Spirit-filled, loving action toward the neighbor to the glory of God. Remembering whom we follow and whose we are, keeps us dependent and responsible on and to God as well as on and to our neighbor. In this divine economy, there is no elitism and division, but only equity and unity, thus peace and justice. Dorothee Sölle writes,

“The love of which the Gospel speaks is simply the radical intervention of one irreplaceable being for another; an identification which is provisional and which makes its agent dependent. Christ identified himself with God and thereby made himself dependent on God’s attaining identity himself. Anyone who identifies himself with Christ likewise represents God in the world, in suffering and in transitoriness.”[32]

The disciples mistakenly divided by who has authority and who doesn’t, who was following the right dogma and who wasn’t; Jesus set them straight: whoever is representing me in the world through deeds of love, life, and liberation, is representing God and is participating in God’s mission. They who have ears to hear, let them hear.

[1] R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, eds. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 376. “if the imperfect tense of ἐκωλύομεν is correct …it probably indicates an unsuccessful attempt rather than the repeated prohibition of a persistent ‘offender’.”

[2] William C. Placher, Mark, Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, eds Amy Plantinga Pauw and William C. Placher. (Louisville: WJK, 2010), 135. “The Twelve make one mistake after another.”

[3] France, Mark, 375. “This little didactic story follows very appropriately form the lesson of vv. 33-37, the call to disciples to be ready to receive those whom they might naturally reject, and the connections is reinforced by the repetition three times in these verse of the phrase ἐπὶ/ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου/σου … which was the reason given for receiving the child in v. 37.”

[4] France, Mark, 375. “Where the name of Jesus (i.e., a relationship with him) is concerned, natural human considerations of who is in and who is out will be subverted.”

[5] France, Mark, 376. “The effect of the pericope is to encourage a welcoming openness on the part of Jesus’ disciples which is in stark contrast to the protective exclusiveness more often associated with religious groups, not least within the Christian tradition.”

[6] France, Mark, 377. “The ground of John’s objection was not lack of success, but the use of Jesus’ name outside the group of disciples. The man’s offence is that οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ ἡμῖν.”

[7] France, Mark, 376. “The man concerned is not a recognized member of the group of disciples, but he does profess to operate in the name of Jesus, and the results of his activity are beneficent. It is this criterion rather than a narrower group identity which the pericope accepts.”

[8] France, Mark, 376-377. “There is some other evidence in the gospels for exorcists outside the immediate circle of Jesus and his disciples…and there are a number of mentioned of exorcism, Jewish and pagan, in roughly contemporary sources…Some of them invoked the name of Jesus (after his death and resurrection), and not always with satisfactory results …This is the only mention of a similar practice during Jesus’ lifetime.”

[9] France, Mark, 376. “To make matters worse, this pericope follows hard on the story of the disciples’ failure in exorcism in 9:14-29. To see an outsider apparently succeeding where they, the chosen agents of Jesus, have failed is doubly distressing.”

[10] France, Mark, 377. What John is looking for is not so much personal allegiance and obedience to Jesus, but membership in the ‘authorised’ circle of his followers. We should perhaps understand ἡμεῖς here as specifically the Twelve, regarded as having an exclusive link with and commission from Jesus, so that other people’s association with him must be through their mediations. Even if such a possessive doctrine is not explicit, it fits John’s restrictive action and explains the terms of Jesus’ response.”

[11] France, Mark, 376. Exorcism as special feature of disciple/the twelve’s calling/authority (given by Jesus), “To find the practice carried out in the name of Jesus by someone unknown to them is therefore a severe blow to the disciples’ sense of identity, and undermines their special status. This issue of status, which underlay the teaching of vv. 33-37, is therefore still in focus.”

[12] France, Mark, 377.

[13] France, Mark, 377. “has associated himself with [Jesus] by using his name, and his choice of that authority, together with the fact of his success, marks him as being on the right side. Such a person cannot in consistency go on to speak as his enemy, and so there is no justification of Jesus’ disciples to oppose him.”

[14] France, Mark, 378. , “The Cliquishness which too easily affects a defined group of people with a sense of mission is among the ‘worldly’ values which must be challenged in the name of the kingdom of God.”

[15] France, Mark, 378. In re “reward” for giving water, “But even so small an act betokens a person’s response to Jesus in the person of his disciples…, and as such will not be unnoticed.”

[16] France, Mark, 378.

[17] Placher, Mark, 135. “The basic direction of Jesus’ response is clear enough—if people are doing good in Jesus’ name, leave them alone.”

[18] France, Mark, 378. “For Mark’s readers it is the title Χριστός which is the touchstone of a persons’ allegiance.”

[19] Placher, Mark, 135. “They are, it turns out, not making a new mistake but the same prideful, competitive ones. If someone is not part of their group, their gang, their tribe, then how dare he claim to do anything in the name of Jesus.”

[20] France, Mark, 378-379. “The three sayings collected in vv. 39-41 thus illustrate in different ways the open boundaries of the kingdom of God, where both committed disciple and sympathetic fellow traveler find their place. The unknown exorcist represents this outer circle, and is to be welcomed as such. There are indeed opponents and ‘outsiders’, as we see repeatedly in the rest of the gospel, but disciples are called on to be cautious in drawing lines of demarcation.

[21] France, Mark, 381. “As Mark’s text stands the question cannot be answered with confidence, but the context as a whole makes it unlikely that the μικροί should be understood only, or even mainly, of children. Disciples of any age are potentially vulnerable to such ‘tripping’.”

[22] France, Mark, 380. “The [following] whole little complex of sayings, like the preceding pericopes, focuses on the demands of discipleship both negatively and positively. The saying thus fit into the overall thrust of this part of the gospel, however artificially they may be linked with one another.”

[23] France, Mark, 381-382. ἡ γέεννα “…a term used in apocalyptic literature for the ultimate place of punishment of the ungodly…it had a clear and well known meaning (because of Matthew’s use}, so that its use alone would communicate adequately.”

[24] France, Mark, 382. Fire “as the agent of judgment and destruction, perhaps exploiting the origin of the word γέεννα in the valley of Hinnom…where the fires of Jerusalem’s refuse dumps burned continuously.”

[25] Placher, Mark, 137. “Gehenna was a valley south of Jerusalem where in ancient times babies were sacrificed to the Canaanite god Moloch. In the reforms under King Josiah (7th century BCE) such practices were brought to an end, and the area became a garbage dump, where refuse was continually smoldering. Gehenna was a horrible place, full of fire, smells, maggots, rats, and things in decay. Its history as a locus of child sacrifice further evokes the context here, where Jesus is singling out for condemnation hose who ‘put a stumbling block before’ or ‘trip up’ any of the ;’little ones who believe in me.’”

[26] France, Mark, 382. Worm statement, “In Isaiah the clause describes the state in which the dead bodies of God’s enemies will be seen, presumably envisaged as decomposing and burning on the battlefield.”

[27] France, Mark, 382-383. “Danger comes to the disciple not only from outside but from within…it is for the reader individually…to determine what aspect of one’s own behavior, tastes, or interests is a potential cause of spiritual downfall, and to take action accordingly.”

[28] Placher, Mark, 138. “But the hypotheticals, while true in themselves, rest on faulty premises. Our hands and feet and eyes do not cause us to sin. We ourselves, our minds, our souls, our wills—whatever language one wants to use, the source of our sin is not a part of us that can be removed with a sharp enough knife. The point of the passage, then, is to say, ‘this is how serous sin is: it would be worth cutting off part of your body to cure it. If only it were that easy. So we have to think even more deeply about sin.”

[29] France, Mark, 384. v. 49 and salt “In this context it speaks of one who follows Jesus as totally dedicated to god’s service, and warns that such dedication will inevitably be costly in terms of personal suffering.”

[30] France, Mark, 385. “The good salt which should characterize disciples consists in …or results in ….peaceful relationships. While salt as a metaphor for peacefulness is in itself an unusual use, in the OT salt symbolises a covenant…”

[31] France, Mark, 384. v. 50 symbolism of “salt” “…in symbolises the beneficial (καλόν) influence of the disciple on society…”

[32] Dorothee Sölle, Christ the Representative: An Essay in Theology after the ‘Death of God,’ translated by David Lewis (London: SCM, 1967), 142. Originally published as, Stellvertretung—Ein Kapitel Theologie nach dem ‘Tode Gottes,’ Kreuz Verlag, 1965. Emphasis, mine.

Posted on by laurenlarkin 0

With Christ, With Others

Sermon on John 2:1-11

Psalm 36:5-7 5 Your love, O Lord, reaches to the heavens, and your faithfulness to the clouds. Your righteousness is like the strong mountains, your justice like the great deep; you save both human and beast, O Lord. How priceless is your love, O God! your people take refuge under the shadow of your wings.

Introduction

One of the things that has been most on my mind as I’ve walked into 2022 has been the idea and concept of “presence.” I know this is not a new concept; the self-care industry has been talking about this forever. It’s a concept I’ve talked about as a mom, partner, teacher, and priest. So why talk about it again?

Because this year it feels different to me.

Historically, presence was a stillness of the whole person. Body and mind take a rest in a particular moment. A seat. A kneel. A pause. A static moment. And these are all great aspects of the concept of presence and ways I’ve definitely employed the idea in my work/life balance. But what occurred to me recently was the idea of presence in motion and movement. I’ve been thinking about how this idea of presence in motion envelopes my relationship to others and to time. I can define this relationship by asking this question: Can I just be here right now with this person?

I think about this question a lot as I walk with Liza two miles to school and then again on our way home in the afternoon. There are times the two miles feels massive…about 40 minutes of time. In a society that demands me to validate each and every minute and submit my time sheet of productivity, it is hard to realize 80 minutes of the day are me, just walking with my daughter. But here I am, walking 80 minutes with my daughter at least 4 days a week. There are mornings where I’m consumed about the time it’ll take me to walk back before I can get to work on various projects—the stress about what needs to be done builds. There have been mornings with the temperature low that the many, many steps—comprising “there and back again” a Larkin tale—feel daunting, and I long for yesteryear when school was just down stairs.

And lately the question—Can I just be here right now with this person?—has grown louder and louder. Can I walk in this moment with Liza without thinking of what is ahead of me and what is behind? Can I just walk, one foot in front of the other, one minute at a time, not rushing and not dragging and not internally complaining? Can I just be here right now in this moment and activity with this person? Can I forget about the time and the distance and just be here, walking with this beloved?

John 2:1-11

Now there were placed there six water pots made of stone each holding a two or three anaphoras [8.75 liters]—in accordance with the purification of the Jews. Jesus said to [the servants], “Fill the water pots.” And they filled them to the brim. And Jesus said to them, “Now draw out and bring forth to the master of the feast.” And they brought [it] forth. Now as the master of the feast tasted the water having become wine …[1]

John 2:6-9a

Jesus is physically and emotionally present at this wedding in Cana. He’s not aloof and above such a scene. One might assume that wine running out at a celebration would be exactly what the Son of God would and should prefer. Aren’t we too holy for such potentially ruckus camaraderie? Apparently: No, we’re not. Instead of informing the servants that water will be just fine because *casually gestures around the room* Jesus adds to the distribution of wine (a lot! 3 anaphoras was about 30 liters, and there were six of these vessels!). Jesus allows the party to go on. In this I hear a question…Why?

An ordinary wedding in Cana is certainly not the place for one’s first miracle. It’s by all definitions very, very ordinary. Yes, weddings can be fun and great, but if you think about it they’re rather common place. (We all breathe a sigh of relief when we finally leave “wedding season” of adult hood.) John the Elder records this story because it’s Jesus’s first publicly performed miracle. But it’s not that extra-ordinary. The miracle here is merely the transition—the transubstantiation—of water into wine. Water, by the word of Christ, becomes wine. That is what happens here. Nothing more; nothing less. For the man Jesus who is the Christ, who is God, this is nothing. Yet it’s here in this very basic act of turning water into wine where Jesus reveals the glory of God.[2] And this is the point.

What is the glory of God being revealed? It is not merely in the water turned wine, but the essence of the why: God’s love for God’s people manifested here at this wedding, in this revelry, in this way, by the presence of Jesus. What John the Elder highlights for his reader (both then and now) is that the gift being given isn’t the wine, but the very real and whole presence of Jesus himself, God of very God, the bread and wine of life.[3] Jesus isn’t just present in a spiritual way in this story. Rather, Jesus is actively present in the lives of all the people invited into this celebration of union and life. A reflection of what comes in the great celebration of the union of God and God’s people. The very celebration started the moment Mary pushed and the angels heralded the shepherds.

Conclusion

A story about a miracle at a celebration revealing the glory of God, which is God’s love for God’s people, has really big ramifications for our lives. This isn’t merely a story that we look in upon, but one into which we are invited. We are called in as guests, with Jesus, to this wedding to see, hear, and experience the joy of new and best wine being revealed at the end of the celebration. We are asked to see Jesus present with these people, and imagine and be reminded that Jesus is with us, too.

You, by faith and the power of the Holy Spirit, walk with God in Christ. Every moment. God is not hiding from you as if you have to hunt and seek for God. You are in Christ (a location) by faith. And the last I checked, it is really hard not to be where you are. You are always here; you are always in and with Christ.The love of God comes to you, reveals to you God’s love for you,[4] enfolds you, wraps you up in the swaddling clothes of love, and you are held in the arms of God. We are in Christ’s presence and with Christ. And Christ is in us by the power of the Spirit and with us by the same power.

In a sermon, “On Being a Good Neighbor”, Martin Luther King, Jr., said,

“The ultimate measure of a man [Sic] is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. The true neighbor will risk his position, his prestige, and even his life for the welfare of others. In dangerous valleys and hazardous pathways, he will lift some bruised and beaten brother to a higher and more noble life.”[5]

Martin Luther King, Jr.

In being located with and in Christ means that others are there, too. This location of being in Christ is one we share with others. And we are all here in this now in Christ, in this presence being given a present. In Christ we are alleviated of the drudgery of the past and the threat of the future, and we can be here now; we get a present tense not just for us but especially for our sisters and brothers in Christ, those sharing this location. We walk with them, one step at a time, one minute at a time, and we bear with them their burdens, their pains, and their sorrow for they live with us. As Christ resided with those whom he counted as his brothers and sisters according to his flesh, as Christ was present at that wedding, so are we present with others, elevating them, to quote Dr. King, “to a higher and more noble life.” In other words, if “‘Christ is the [person] for others’”, then “the [person] for others is the [person] after God’s heart.”[6]

We, the beloved, are gifted with the revelation that by faith and the power of the Holy Spirit we walk with God in Christ… with God not behind and afraid, but with God. God is with us, all of us, and thus we are called to the other of the beloved.

[1] Translation mine unless otherwise noted.

[2] Rudolf Bultmann The Gospel of John: A Commentary Trans. GR Beasley-Murray and RWN Hoare and JK Riches. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster. 1971. 119. “For the Evangelist the meaning of the story is not contained simply in the miraculous event; this, or rather the narrative, is the symbol of something which occurs throughout the whole of Jesus’ ministry, that is, the revelation of the δόξα of Jesus. As understood by the Evangelist this is not the power of the miracle worker, but the divinity of Jesus as the Revealer, and it becomes visible for faith in the reception of χάρις and ἀλήθεια; his revelation of his δόξα is nothing more nor less than his revelation of the ονομα of the Father (17.6).”

[3] Bultmann John 120. “…the Evangelist’s figurative language refers not to any particular gift brought by the Saviour Jesus, but to Jesus himself as the Revealer, as is true of the images of the living water, the bread of life and the light, as well as of the shepherd and the vine; equally the wine refers not to any special gift, but to Jesus’ gift as a whole, to Jesus himself as the Revealer, as he is finally visible after the completion of his work.”

[4] Bultmann John 121. “The story then will teach us that the help for all man’s perplexity is to be found in the miracle of the revelation; but the event of the revelation is independent of human desires and cannot be forcibly brought about by man’s supplication; it comes to pass where and how God wills, and then it surpasses all human expectation.”

[5] Martin Luther King, Jr., “On Being a Good Neighbor” Strength to Love Minnesapolis, MN: Fortress, 2010. 26-27

[6] Dorothee Sölle Theology for Skeptics : Reflections on God Trans Joyce L. Irwin. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1995. 96. “[Jesus] let this light shine through himself,  he did not hide it in the depths of his soul, he gave it out. He was the man [Sic] for others because he was the man of God and knew himself to be so borne up by God that he did not fall out of God, not even when he felt himself abandoned by God. The old formula ‘true man’ is rendered by Bonhoeffer as ‘man,’ where being ‘true God’ is called by Bonhoeffer simply being there ‘for others,’ because God is for others the God of love. Thus the sentence, ‘Christ is the man for others,’ is the old Christological formula ‘true God and true man’ in contemporary speech which refers to God without using religious formulas. The man for others it’s the man after God’s heart.”

Posted on by laurenlarkin 0