Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Lectionary

  • The Mosaic Bible and the Lectionary – Update

    As I mentioned in an earlier post I’ve been trying to test the value of Holy Bible: Mosaic NLT (Meditations) for a lectionary preacher or teacher.  I use the weekly lectionary texts regularly for my personal devotions, attend a lectionary study group each Wednesday at noon, and also use the texts on those few occasions when I’m asked to preach.

    Of course, the texts in the Mosaic Bible are not the same as any one of the three years of the lectionary cycle, though they are done in the same pattern.  One could preach through this Bible for a year in one’s church with profit, I think as it would follow the church’s liturgical year, even though one would not be using the regular set of texts.

    But the alternative is to use some of the mosaic resources, the materials that come from various times and places, to supplement the regular materials.  In that, I’ve found that there is a scattering of texts I can use during ordinary time, but as I approach Advent, I’m finding that things are much more helpful.  This is to be expected, because the many weeks in ordinary time are not so precisely themed.

    For example, in the material for the first Sunday of Advent, titled “Longing” Matthew Woodley has a meditation titled “Imagine.”  One line will illustrate the value for Advent–“Advent trains us to ache again.”  (p. 18)  (My sister wrote a poem related to this point, which she has graciously permitted me to post.)

    I do think it is necessary to go through the various advent readings, because you may not be using them on the same week as indicated.

    Overall, I have found this to be a valuable resource, but not quite first rank overall in my lectionary reading and study.

  • Translating Philippians 1:9-11

    Philippians 1:3-11 is one of the Lectionary passages this week, and so I read through it this morning during my devotional time in Greek.  Now Paul is good at long sentences.  I remember the embarrassment once working with a Greek student who was translating this passage in his second year.  He was doing OK in literal terms, but I was suggesting how he might make the English clearer.  Well, pride goes before a fall, and I had hardly begun to do my “freer” translation when the moorings came completely loose and I got totally tangled up.  It took three or four tries before the result was coherent, and it still wasn’t that great.

    It’s not that I’m not well acquainted with the passage.  It is even one of those I have recorded for myself on CD so I can listen while driving.  But you wouldn’t have known it from my English that day.  The problem is that you can either translate one of Paul’s long Greek sentences into a harder to understand long English one, or you can try to keep the right sense in the transitions using shorter sentences.

    This morning, after reading, I looked it up in the NLT, and then compared that first to the NRSV and then the CEV.  I’m going to put the NRSV first, as it’s most equivalent in a formal sense, then comment on what I noticed.  Also, before anyone decides I’m beating up on one translation or another, I have a high regard for all three of these translations in the appropriate context.

    NRSV NLT CEV
    9And this is my prayer, that your love may overflow more and more with knowledge and full insight 10to help you to determine what is best, so that in the day of Christ you may be pure and blameless, 11having produced the harvest of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ for the glory and praise of God. 9I pray that your love will overflow more and more, and that you will keep on growing in knowledge and understanding. 10For I want you to understand what really matters, so that you may live pure and blameless lives until the day of Christ’s return. 11May you always be filled with the fruit of your salvation–the righteous character produced in your life by Jesus Christ–for this will bring much glory and praise to God. 9I pray that your love will keep on growing and that you will fully know and understand 10how to make the right choices. Then you will still be pure and innocent when Christ returns. And until that day, 11Jesus Christ will keep you busy doing good deeds that bring glory and praise to God.

    I think both the NLT and the CEV have some difficulty keeping the relationships between the concepts clear. Obviously, how well one thinks each translation did at that task will depend on how one things those elements are related in Greek.

    So let me say how I hear this when I read it in Greek.  Paul starts from the point of love, but he is not merely saying that he wants love to grow in quantity.  He’s praying that their love will be filled with knowledge and insight.  When love is filled with knowledge and insight, one can discern what is most important, which leads in turn to pure and blameless living.  That in turn brings brings forth the fruit of righteousness, bring honor to Jesus, who brought all this forth in any case.

    Now I can find that in the NRSV, though I do acknowledge that many modern readers will have a hard time holding that long of a sentence together, so the readers may not benefit from it.  (Communication is not accomplished unless the recipient actually receives the message!)  The NLT, however, seems to me to make the growth in knowledge and understanding coordinate with, rather than part of, the growth of love.  Then “determining what is best” is the reason Paul wants them to grow in love.  I must note that I prefer the NLT’s “what really matters,” though I acknowledge the Greek will support either rendering.

    I think the CEV does a better job coordinating the growth of love and the knowledge and insight, but there the translation “make the right choices” seems to lose some of the nuance of the message.  Both the CEV and the NLT break what seems to me to be a tightly linked chain.

    Now I may be too picky here, and as I acknowledged at the start, I find it impossible to satisfy myself with a translation of this passage, along with a number of other long sentences from Paul.  I find elements to commend in all three translations, along with those I have questioned.

  • Mosaic Bible (NLT) and Lectionary Preaching

    I decided to check on what Holy Bible: Mosaic NLT might have for my lectionary reading this week.

    First I checked the material for the 18th Sunday in Pentecost.  Their readings do not coincide with the Revised Common Lectionary at all this week, though they do follow the church year.

    The RCL readings (with United Methodist readings) are:  Job 1:1, 2:1-10, Psalm 25 or 26, Heb. 1:1-4, 2:4-12, Mark 10:2-16.  The Mosaic Bible readings are Job 32:1-37:24, Psalm 112, 1 Corinthians 1:18-31, and John 9:1-34.

    Oddly enough, there is a thematic match in terms of suffering, hardship, and justice, though the take on it might be different depending on which scriptures you use  The additional reading from Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is also contructive though it takes the theme in a slightly different direction.  Readings from Alexander McLaren on Christ as the lamb of God and by Ed Cyzewski on “Unfair Justice” would make good reading before one tries to preach on Job.

    Looking at the texts the other way, by going to the scriptures and finding readings, I find that Psalm 25 is used for Advent 1, and there are some useful readings there as well as some additional themes.  The epistle, Hebrews 1:1-4 is used for Christmas (actually Hebrews 1:1-12, but who’s counting?) and continues the theme of waiting introduced in Advent.  (Waiting and justice might make an excellent combined theme for a homily, don’t you think?)  The gospel reading from the RCL does not occur in the meditations of the Mosaic Bible.

    I believe that I will consult this Bible regularly in my lectionary reading.  The weekly lectionary passages form the core of my personal devotions, even though I do not preach regularly.  I especially enjoy finding connections between the texts and finding themes on which to meditate from those.

  • A Bowdlerized Lectionary Passage

    There are a number of lectionary selections that skip part of a passage. Sometimes this is for time. Sometimes it relates to topic, but sometimes it is simply used to remove material that might offend.

    I like lectionary preaching and teaching. I think it forces pastors to get out of their comfort zones and expound on passages they might otherwise not read. I don’t think it’s the only way to go. I think preaching through the Bible has a place, as does topical preaching. But topical preaching is especially subject to the limitations of a pastor’s particular interests.

    Further, I like a worship service that includes all four passages of the lectionary. As Christians we have remarkably little patience for hearing the scripture. I sometimes get the feeling that people prefer the sermon because it has less Bible in it. I have encountered very few services that do include all the passages, but I have truly been blessed by those that do.

    But having said all of that, the Revised Common Lectionary can get no my nerves, and this week was a case in point. The Old Testament passage is from 2 Samuel 6. The story, as told in 2 Samuel, brings out many aspects of worship as seen then in Israel.

    We start with the ark of the covenant in exile, away from the center of Israelite life. David wants to bring the ark to Jerusalem, so he proceeds to do so joyfully. But joy is turned to sorrow when Uzzah tries to steady the ark and is struck dead.

    Now I know that’s a difficult passage in the Old Testament, but you might as well not try to understand the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures at all if you don’t want to recognize that the writers viewed contact with the holy as a very dangerous thing. (This is one of the difficult passages that my friend Alden Thompson discusses in his book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?.

    After the ark is kept in a home for a time, David again comes to move it to Jerusalem with better preparation. The story ends with David dancing before the Lord, and his wife Michal despises him for it.

    Besides the inherent danger of approaching that which is holy, this story also illustrates the combination of fear and joy. We want to separate the fear of the Lord from the joy of the Lord these days. We don’t understand how these things can co-exist. But the Bible writers had no such problem.

    Now what about the lectionary passage? Proper 10B gives us 2 Samuel 6:1-5, 12b-19. This splits the story as all the people are making merry and before Uzzah touches the ark in 6:6, then resumes it when David starts taking the ark on from the house of Obed-Edom. It skips 6:12a which tells us how David is motivated to do so when he sees that Obed-Edom is blessed while the ark is present.

    We now continue the joyful procession, with our scripture reading skipping a funeral and three months of time, heading on into Jerusalem. Presumably, the congregation is not supposed to ask just why the ark is in Obed-Edom’s house.

    Finally, the story ends with verse 19 as everyone goes home happy, and skips Michal’s story, which provides the other counterpoint. Worship can be destroyed by disobedience to God, but it can also be destroyed by those who despise the joy.

    You may tell me that people can read these additional passages for themselves, and that the extra reading will not contribute to the service. I don’t think one can be certain of these things. For many church people these days, the scripture reading is pretty much all the scripture they get.

    In this case, I think the story is made to say something completely different than it does in its full context. It’s like a different story all together.

  • St. Gregory the Theologian on Ransom and the Bronze Serpent

    I was delighted to find this quote via the Orthodox Study Bible, though I must add to my complaints about that edition the fact that they cite church fathers by name, but without providing a reference to the particular work.  A visit to the St. Pachomius Library and then ewtn.com resolved the latter question.

    The quote is from St. Gregory the Theologian’s Second Paschal Oration, XXII:

    TWENTY-TWO

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most
people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into.  To Whom was
that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed?  I mean
the precious and famous Blood of our God and Highpriest and Sacrifice.
We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and
receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness.  Now, since a ransom
belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this
offered, and for what cause?

If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage!  If the robber receives
ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself,
and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for
whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone
altogether.

But if to the Father, I ask first, how?  For it was not by Him that we
were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His
Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even
Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the
sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim?  Is it not
evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor
demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity
must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us
Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the
mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the
Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things?

So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say
shall be reverenced with silence.  But that brazen serpent [Num. 21:9]
was hung up as a remedy for the biting serpents, not as a type of Him
that suffered for us, but as a contrast; and it saved those that
looked upon it, not because they believed it to live, but because it
was killed, and killed with it the powers that were subject to it,
being destroyed as it deserved.  And what is the fitting epitaph for
it from us?  "O death, where is thy sting?  O grave, where is thy
victory?"  Thou art overthrown by the Cross; thou art slain by Him who
is the Giver of life; thou art without breath, dead, without motion,
even though thou keepest the form of a serpent lifted up on high on a
pole.

    There are two elements that particularly attracted me to this quote.  The OrthSB quotes the final section about the serpent, which goes well with this week’s lectionary texts.  I like the idea that it was precisely the fact that the serpent on the pole is dead that provides the healing.  He is a defeated serpent.  It would also provide some interesting context to the worship of the serpent up to Hezekiah’s time, that is until Hezekiah broke it up (2 Kings 18:4).  This differs from part of the interpretation I provided yesterday in my lectionary notes.

    If you’re missing out on the eastern church fathers regarding the atonement, you are missing out on a lot.

  • Psalm 107 and Artificial Divisions

    I did the Old Testament/Psalms portion of my lectionary reading today from the Jewish Study Bible.  The notes draw attention to the difficulty in separating Psalm 107 into the next book.  The division between books 4 and 5 of the Psalms occurs between Psalm 106 and 107.  But these divisions are later than the text itself.

    One should be aware that the Psalms are a collection, and that they are individually composed.  This makes their context within the book somewhat different in nature than the context of a particular chapter in another book.  For example, when I look at a chapter in Samuel-Kings, I look for it’s place in the overall scheme of the history presented.  In Isaiah or Jeremiah, while I realize that individual oracles were written at different times, I look for some sort of thematic arrangement.  The Pslams are a bit looser than that, or at least we are less certain of just why the collection was arranged.  Certainly, it is a collection of material by more than one author.

    The Jewish Study Bible points out that Psalm 107 fits into the theme of Psalms 103-106, and indeed resembles them more than it does Psalm 108.  They also suggest moving the word “Hallelujah” from the end of Psalm 106 to the beginning of Psalm 107.  I would need to look at this further, but I am less impressed with that suggestion, even though I suggested that the Hallelujah at the end of Psalm 104 be moved to the beginning of Psalm 105 when I wrote on it in graduate school.

    That change would result in an envelope of Hallelujah around Psalm 105 and again around Psalm 106, while Psalm 103 and Psalm 104 have an envelope of “Bless the LORD, O my soul.”  I think that single move I suggested back then works very well.

    The thematic difference is more impressive, but I do see some thematic ties that point in both directions.  I’m not certain this division should actually be changed, though we should realize it’s later than the original collection, if “original collection” is even valid in reference to the Psalms.

    I’m going to link to Bob McDonald at Bob’s Log,who has done much more work on the Psalms than I have (and that’s an understatement!), in the hopes that he will comment.

  • Relating Ritual, Symbol, and Reality – A Question

    I was looking at this week’s lectionary passages, and a relationship with my current study of Leviticus struck me.  How precisely do our actions and rituals symbolize what we’re trying to represent?  Is it possible that all they do is open up the questions for us?  I wrote about some of the oddness of God’s offering of grace, if viewed from the human perspective, in my lectionary notes.

    Now here’s what strikes me in reading Leviticus, or even better in reading from about Exodus 21-Numbers:  The symbols illustrate to a greater or lesser degree a vast array of the elements of the way in which we relate to God.  We can look at this historically, as in a historical separation from God, with Jesus tearing open the veil and allowing all of us access to the throne of grace.

    We can also see it as an illustration of our own lives and progress.  We each start with a certain distance to traverse toward God.  There are those who help lead us to God.  Those who object to the notion of “priest” with reference to the pastoral role neglect this aspect, I think.  Some try to push pastor or priest aside because we all have access, but for each person, and even for the community as a whole, there is still a need for the priestly role until we all actually attain that direct access to God.

    Those who quibble about sacrificial rules when discussing the sacrifice of Jesus miss the point as well.  The animal sacrifices pointed to elements of our relationship to God and the way in which God related to us.  I’m not arguing here for a directly type-antitype, i.e. singular relationship between these sacrifices and Jesus.  The sacrifices themselves continually pointed Israel to God’s grace, the way it was offered, and the duty it placed on the recipients.

    The tabernacle system of worship also included elements of community, of individual responsibility for the group and group responsibility for the individual, of praise, simple worship, and even of the need for certain routines and certainties in our lives.

    As I noted regarding the lectionary texts, the serpent was an equivocal symbol.  We are called to look on a symbol that is equivocal when we look at the cross.  Our human eyes will see death.  The Holy Spirit can enlighten us to see life.  The cross looks distinctively different depending on which side you’re on when you look.  Looking back it’s a symbol of life.  Looking forward, it’s a fearful, dangerous thing looking a great deal like death.

    The rituals of the tabernacle emphasize life and its importance, but they did so with a great deal of death.  They too had that kind of double look.  We live in a world that is filled with such symbols.  Perhaps we should not be too anxious to reconcile them too thoroughly.

    I’m just thinking out loud and rambling.  What do you think?

  • Using the NLTSB and NISB: Exodus 14:19-31

    Yesterday I looked at Romans 14:1-12 in these two versions. Today I’m looking at another of this week’s lectionary passages, Exodus 14:19-31. Those who aren’t seriously interested in these two study Bibles should probably skip this whole series. Watch for the first part of the title (Using the NLTSB [NLT] and NISB [NRSV]) and flee when you see it! Each of my notes will be short, however, so don’t panic.

    There is a greater difference in emphasis in this passage than there was on Romans 14:1-12. In that passage the theological themes emphasized in the notes were only slightly different. In this passage, we see more substantial emphases.

    Miracles: The NLTSB makes particular note of the miraculous aspect and comments that “. . . [a]s with the plagues, naturalistic explanations for this event are beside the point.” The NISB simply narrates the passage and looks at meaning without comment.

    Sources: The NISB notes differing interpretations of the rescue from Egypt according to sources. NLTSB does not mention this aspect. (This information involves reading beyond the limits of the notes on the specified verses, but such reading is necessary to place the notes in context for either edition.)

    Choosing Excurses: In the NLTSB we find an excursus title “A Hardened Heart” which deals with issues raised by the statement that “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” The discussion is really quite good, especially for the limited space provided and references a number of texts where one can look at the interplay between God’s sovereignty and human choice or human responsibility. In the NISB, there is also an excursus, but it is titled “Salvation and the Sea” and deals with the relationship between this passage and other ancient near eastern liturgy and symbols.

    I have a certain bias toward the emphasis of the NISB in this case, because I’m very conscious of comparative ancient near eastern materials, and I really like their introduction to the ideas involved. Apart from that bias, however, I would be hard pressed to call one of these better than the other. They choose different things to emphasize, but either choice is a good one and might be what a pastor or teacher would find most useful.

    Using these two study Bibles for a period of time is increasing my respect for both editions. I may have to add them to my reading more often!

  • A Simple Witness

    The man was a good Christian. Any of us would be quite pleased to have his reputation for faith and Christian charity. He was part of a study group I led, and we were discussing witnessing.

    “I’m afraid to put a fish symbol on my car,” he said. “I might do something that’s not Christlike, and then what would someone think?”

    There is a risk in being a witness, but at the same time, a silent witness may not be sufficient. It’s important to be identified as a recipient of God’s grace through Jesus Christ, i.e. as a Christian person and not just a nice person.

    I was struck by the simplicity of it today in reading the lectionary passage for a week from Sunday. It starts with Genesis 24:34:

    And he [Abraham’s servant] said, “I am Abraham’s servant.”

    It’s easy to read right past that, but this morning it halted me. How simple! Abraham’s servant wasn’t certain he was going to be successful. In fact, he had asked Abraham to absolve him of failure ahead of time, should that failure result from a negative response from the family in Haran.

    It reminded me of a missionary who told me that he simply did good deeds, in his case feeding children in need. If asked, he would say, “I’m doing this because Jesus told me today.”

    Might it be possible that the one thing that needs to be added to your life and Christian witness is that simple statement, something like: “I am Christ’s servant?”

  • Psalm 104 Article

    Since Psalm 104 is in the lectionary for Pentecost (May 11), I thought I’d take this opportunity to link again to my essay on that Psalm which dates from when I was working on my MA.

    I created a critical (or reconstructed) Hebrew text, provided a translation and notes, and did some analysis on the structure. Most of my conclusions I would still support today, even though more years have passed than I care to number.

    It’s a wonderful Psalm, and I hope my work on it will be of help to someone who is studying it along with the lectionary.