Revelation 21 The New Jerusalem

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
5He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."
6He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life.
The dream of a new heaven and a new earth was deep in Jewish thought. And this thought is equally strong between the Testaments. The picture is always there and the elements are always the same. Sorrow is to be forgotten; sin is to be defeated and the temporariness of time is to turn into the everlastingness of eternity. Barclay says that this ongoing belief is a witness to three things - to the longings of our souls, to our awareness of sin and to our faith in God.

Then we come across this most famous phrase in the Book of Revelation, "And there was no more sea". This phrase has a double background according to Barclay. First, it has a background in the great mythological beliefs of John's time. In the Babylonian story of the creation of the world there is a long struggle between Marduk, the god of creation, and Tiamat, the dragon of chaos. In that story the sea, the waters beneath the firmament, become the dwelling place of Tiamat. The sea was always an enemy. The Egyptians saw it as the power which swallowed up the waters of the Nile and left the fields barren.

Second, it had more of a human background. The ancient peoples hated the sea, even though by the time of John, they were voyaging long and far. They did not possess the compass yet, and so, as far as possible, they coasted along the shores. The sea represented all their fears and they longed for a day when there would be no more sea.

Next John says that he sees the "the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband". Here again is a dream of the Jews which never died - the dream of the restoring of Jerusalem, the holy city. Again, Barclay points out that there is a double background.

1) There is an essentially Greek background. Plato's idea of forms taught that in the invisible world there existed an exact copy of everything on earth and that all things on earth were imperfect copies of the heavenly realities. If that is so there is a heavenly Jerusalem of which the earthly Jerusalem is an imperfect copy. It further means that God is the source of all ideals. The ideal is a challenge which, even if it is not worked out in this world, cam still be worked out in the world to come.

2) The second background of the concept of the new Jerusalem is entirely Jewish. John's vision of the new Jerusalem uses and amplifies the dreams of the prophets. It is easy to see how the new Jerusalem was a constant dream; and that John lovingly collected the different visions - the precious stones, the streets and buildings of gold, the ever-open gates, the light of God making the light of the sun and moon unnecessary, the coming of the nations and the bringing of their gifts - into his own. Here is faith. Even when Jerusalem was obliterated, the Jews never lost confidence that God would restore it.

Revelation 21 The New Jerusalem

3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

Whose is this loud voice? It is the voice of one of the angels in the Presence of God. He says that God will live with us. The word used is the word for a tent. there are two main meaning here, according to WB. First, the tabernacle in the desert was the tent par excellence and represented the presence of God. Here in this world of things and of time and space we only realise the presence of God from time to time - in a spasmodic way; but in heaven we will be permanently aware of that presence. Second, there are two words totally different in meaning but similar in sound which in early Christian thought became closely connected. "Skene" (the word for a tent) is one and "Shechinah" (the glory of God) is the other. The connection in sound, Barclay points out, brought it about that men could not hear the one without thinking about the other. In the new age the glory of God is not to be a transitory thing, but something which abides permanently with the people of God.

This fellowship with God in the new age, the golden age, brings certain things. Tears and grief and crying and pain are gone. Death too shall be gone. That, too, had been the dream of the ancient prophets. "He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces" (Isaiah 25:8). This is a promise for the future. But even in this present world those who mourn are blessed, for they will be comforted, and death will be swallowed up in victory for those who know Christ and the fellowship of his sufferings and the power of his resurrection (Matthew 5:4; Philippians 3:10).

Mark

SERMON FOR ALL SAINTS SUNDAY 4TH NOVEMBER

John 11:32-44 (NRSV)
32When Mary came where Jesus was and saw him, she knelt at his feet and said to him, ‘Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.’ 33When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved. 34He said, ‘Where have you laid him?’ They said to him, ‘Lord, come and see.’ 35Jesus began to weep. 36So the Jews said, ‘See how he loved him!’ 37But some of them said, ‘Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?’ 38 Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39Jesus said, ‘Take away the stone.’ Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, ‘Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead for four days.’ 40Jesus said to her, ‘Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?’ 41So they took away the stone. And Jesus looked upwards and said, ‘Father, I thank you for having heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.’ 43When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, ‘Lazarus, come out!’ 44The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, ‘Unbind him, and let him go.’

The readings this week are for All Saints Day celebrated next Sunday.

In this reading we have a lovely example of the humanity of our Lord. It is so important for me to stress that Jesus was fully human, for if he was not, then how could he really know what we all experience? Yes, he was the incarnation if God as well, but I do not believe that this means that he was not human in the same way as we are. The incarnation will always remain a mystery.

Jesus was heartbroken by the news of the death of his friend Lazarus – and he wept. It was especially sad as, while it is possible to argue that the others whom Jesus raised might merely have been in a coma or a very deep sleep, all Jews were of the view that, after four days, the spirit finally left the body, and a sign of this was that the body – very definitely – began to decay; in fact in the hot climate, by this time it would be so badly decayed that it would be hardly recognisable.

Jesus asked for the stone to be removed, and because of the decay, his request was initially challenged because of the stench that would result. But Jesus responded “Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?”

Before going into any depth, Barclay suggests that there are certain things to take special note of:

Firstly, Jesus prayed. The power that flowed through him was not his; it was God’s. “Miracles” says Godet, “are just so many answered prayers.”

Secondly, Jesus sought only the glory of God. He did nothing to glorify himself.

Everything that Jesus did was due to the power of God and was designed for the glory of God. We are so different. Barclay comments: “So much that we do is attempted in our own power and designed for our own prestige. It may be that there would be more wonders in our life too, if we ceased to act by ourselves and for ourselves and set God in the central place.”


I must admit, that I found Barclay’s notes on this passage – that I used last time – a little disappointing, as he did not penetrate the text in the same way that he normally does. In a later reflection, he gets closer to the mark when he exhorts us to honestly face the difficulties.

(i) In the other Gospels there are accounts of people being raised e.g. Jairus’ daughter, the widow’s son at Nain. As I mentioned earlier, it is quite possible that these people were merely in a coma. Barclay explains that, at this time, it happened quite frequently that people were in fact buried alive because of the necessary haste to bury them, so Jesus could have been seen as saving them from this sort of death.
(ii) There is no mention at all of the raising of Lazarus in the other Gospel accounts.
(iii) John portrays the event of the raising of Lazarus as the final straw which caused the authorities to want to get rid of Jesus – where in the other Gospels, it was Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple.

There have been some attempts to address these issues:

(i) Renan sees the whole incident as a fraud arranged by Jesus and Martha, Mary and Lazarus. Barclay (rightly) dismisses this as needing to be mentioned just to be dismissed as incredible.
(ii) Perhaps Lazarus was in a coma, but the events in the narrative seem to dismiss this – the detail is simply too vivid.
(iii) The story could be an allegory.

I like the way Barclay deals with this. He agrees that there are difficulties and we might never really know exactly what happened. But something significant must have happened.

Perhaps the most important thing to stress here is the fact of our present experience of death and resurrection, for this is something that is real in the life of Christians. So Barclay comments:

“There may be problems with this story; we may never know what exactly happened at Bethany so many years ago: but we do know for certain that Jesus is still the Resurrection and the Life. That is what the story tells us – and that is what really happens …”

I had never thought that this passage was as controversial as it seems – probably because most of my ministry has been in schools where I have been a teacher of philosophy. So many scholars think it probably never happened and that this was just John revealing an important truth – a vital truth – but using a made up story to illustrate the point. Richardson calls this the ‘… last and most stupendous of St John’s seven signs …’ Richardson continues explaining that John’s purpose was ‘… to relate the Gospel story in such a way as to make the meaning of the life of Christ in history while at the same time he felt free to re-cast the whole synoptic tradition in the interest of his purpose …’So, Richardson concludes that it is not literally true but John is telling a story to explain a greater than literal truth.

To modern ears – even to mine – this seems outrageous: how can he feel free to (in effect) make something up, portray it as something that actually happened, to make a theological point?

It is true that experience bears witness to the truth that Jesus has conquered death and that spiritual existence is more real and precious than mere physical existence. John Suggit explains that the experience of Lazarus is a type of Christian disciples and what happened to him is the experience of every Christian. Like Lazarus we are loved by the Lord, we are called by name from death to life, like him, as sheep of the good shepherd, we listen and obey and we are handed over into the Christian community when we have found new life in Christ and most important, just as Lazarus was found at dinner with Jesus and the disciples (12:2) so are we at the celebration of the Eucharist. Suggit concludes:

“It is not difficult therefore to consider chapter 11 as reflecting the experience of every Christian who has been raised to life by Christ …”

But is it true that John was just writing a spiritual gospel for those who were already in the faith? Suggit disagrees and adds:

“…John has narrated the story, which presumably he accepted as a historical event, in a way which symbolically describes the person and work of Jesus …”

John is stressing that they need to see the life of Jesus and his earthly ministry and relate it to their own experience. Lazarus’ death and rising is mirrored in our experience. Jesus is the giver of life – real life – and this is much more than mere physical existence, not a mere continuation of mortal life. True life can be found only by abiding in Christ. This life is received by faith, when a person becomes a Christian. This new life involves a death. To find life we must share in the death of Christ as Thomas said earlier in chapter 11 (verse 16) “Let us too go with him that we may die with him.”

We need to have died to our old selves and find new meaning by being united with Christ.

This passage tells of something both dramatic and yet very ordinary. It tells of a simple trust and faith friends have for each other. Mary comes to Jesus with the simple words of conviction: “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” Jesus responds with the complete identification of love for her and her brother and so spontaneously allows himself to be moved to tears because he is vulnerable and is overwhelmed. He wept; he did not just shed a polite tear – he literally wept. Those who are allowed to witness the privilege of this profound intimacy comment: “See how he loved him …” What they next say shows how they are voyeurs and not part of the real moment. For me evidence this is evidence that the author of this Gospel was John, the Apostle and the Beloved disciple; because John notices that Jesus was “… greatly disturbed …”

Jesus said to Martha, ‘Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?’ Allow me a moment to elaborate on this, which for me, is a most important point. Karen Armstrong, in her The Case for God makes an important point:

Why did Jesus set such store by [belief]? The simple answer is that he did not. The word translated ‘faith’ in the New Testament is the Greek pistis … which means ‘trust; loyalty; engagement; commitment’. Jesus was not asking people to ‘believe’ in his divinity … he was asking people for commitment. He wanted disciples who would engage with his mission, give all they had to the poor, feed the hungry, refuse to be hampered by family ties, abandon their pride, lay aside their self-importance and sense of entitlement … trust in the God who was their father.

In Middle English bileven meant to ‘prize; to value; to hold dear. It was related to the German belieben (to love). Armstrong continues:

So, ‘belief’ originally meant ‘loyalty to a person to whom one is bound in promise or duty.

Belief and faith became interchangeable. Belief only became to be seen differently during the late 17^th Century and the Enlightenment. Now it started to be used as an intellectual assent to a particular proposition, teaching, opinion or doctrine. Armstrong concludes:

It was used in this modern sense first by philosophers and scientists, and the new usage did not become common in religious contexts until the 19^th Century.

It seems feasible then, that Jesus was saying to Martha – and now to paraphrase – “Did I not tell you that if you remained loyal and committed and trusted God, your Father, you would see his glory.”

John’s writing is so crucial for Christians. It forces us to move away from being mere observers and challenges us to become engaged in a dynamic, personal encounter with the narrative and from there to the living Christ in our own lives. Suggit puts it this way:

… the purpose is to draw the reader or hearer to be closely involved in the story which he unfolds … the story is as much a reflection of the circumstances in which the gospels were produced as a history of the events in Jesus’ life …

If this was not the case, all we would have would be the so-called ‘facts’ about what happened, but we would be unaware of their real significance. Jesus is not just a figure of past history, but the living Lord of the Church. Suggit continues:

… the meaning is [also] not fixed once for all but has continually to be discovered or rediscovered by the reader or hearer, who needs to share at least some of the attitudes of the evangelist.

This is what I believe!

Amen.

SERMON NOTES FOR 28TH OCTOBER 2012

Mark 10:46-end (NRSV)

The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus

46 They came to Jericho. As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside. ⁴⁷When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout out and say, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’⁴⁸Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ ⁴⁹Jesus stood still and said, ‘Call him here.’ And they called the blind man, saying to him, ‘Take heart; get up, he is calling you.’ ⁵⁰So throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus. ⁵¹Then Jesus said to him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ The blind man said to him, ‘My teacher, let me see again.’ ⁵²Jesus said to him, ‘Go; your faith has made you well.’ Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the way. 

This passage is of great significance for me. When I first entered the ministry, I reflected on this passage before a sermon, using the Ignatian style of meditation I was instructed in as part of my training, and I was transported to the scene in my mind’s eye and saw Jesus reaching out to me with the lovely question: “What do you want me to do for you?” My response was the same as that of Bartimeaus “My teacher let me see …” It was at this time that I felt called to be a biblical expositor and began preaching through Luke’s Gospel. It was a blessed time, with people returning each week for the next instalment, often bringing family and friends along with them. Soon, the Church was full. I am convinced that expository preaching is at the heart of church growth because – as I referred to William Temple and the Benedictine Prayer Book and their emphasis on reading and hearing the Word of God on Sunday – God meets with His people in a special way when we come to the written word – because it is here that we encounter the Living Word – giving us guidance, challenge and blessing for our lives in the here and now. It is all too easy to think that we are dealing with a person in the past – where Jesus is a living, real presence. What he says to Bartimaeus he does indeed say to all of us – a reason why Ignatius and the Jesuits became such a vital and important force; why evangelical divines fill their churches and why people like Barclay and his commentaries (our mentor on this journey) have such powerful and effective ministries. And people are starving for this! Too often, I have attended worship, heard the readings, have hungered for more, only to find that the preacher preaches of something else!

Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem for the Passover. He was surrounded by a crowd who were listening to him as he walked and taught. This was one of the most common ways of teaching. If you lived within 15 miles of Jerusalem, you were under a duty to attend Temple worship at Passover time, so the place will have been packed, with all the Temple priests on duty. Barclay suggests that

“… there would be many cold and bleak and hostile eyes in that crowd that day, because it was clear that if Jesus was right the whole Temple worship was one vast irrelevancy …”

At the northern gate there sat a beggar, Bartimaeus; he must have asked what was happening only to be told that it was Jesus’ group that was approaching, so he called out, knowing that this was his only chance for help, so ‘… he cried with such violence and importunity that the procession stopped …’ and he was brought to Jesus.

Barclay suggests that this event gives us insight to what he calls the ‘… conditions of a miracle …’

(i)                 There is the PERSISTENCE of Bartimaeus – nothing would stop him from coming face to face with Jesus – and it is this that gets things done. It is my view that many people do not ever expect to meet Jesus at all and think that we refer to the Jesus of history alone. It is also my experience that when people are reminded and persist in their quest to meet with the risen Christ, the Christ of faith – then things begin to happen in their lives. The first step is not only to persist, but to come face to face with our risen Lord who is real today as ever when he walked this earth before us.

(ii)               The response of Bartimaeus to our Lord’s call was IMMEDIATE. There are certain chances that happen only once and Bartimaeus instinctively knew this and acted with immediate effect. Sometimes we have a longing for something to change in our lives – and we procrastinate – and the moment, possibly a life-transforming moment passes.

(iii)             He knew PRECISELY what he wanted. Barclay claims that all too often we are vague and sentimental – and it would be good if we could be specific in some instances and this is because we do not want the self-examination that decisiveness requires. Bartimaeus must have had plenty of time for reflection, but there was no doubting in his mind what he wanted from our Lord.

We have all experienced many miracles in our lives, not least the blessing of ontological ordination and the privilege of being priests.

Bartimaeus had an inadequate conception of Jesus – referring to him as the Son of David. True, this was a Messianic title, but the one that referred to a conquering Messiah, a King of David’s line who would lead the people to military and political victory and national greatness. But despite this, he had a more important virtue – faith – and this made up for the inadequacy of his theology. We are not required to fully understand – because this is humanly impossible – but we are required to have faith.

Faith ought not to be confused with belief – faith refers rather to a personal relationship with Jesus – as Barclay explains: “… a reaction of love, an instinctive feeling that here is the one person who can meet our need. Even if we are able to think things out, theologically, that instinctive response and cry of the human heart is enough …”

And in the end there is the one precious touch. Bartimaeus might have been a beggar, but he was a grateful beggar. Having received the touch of our Lord, he followed Jesus. He did not selfishly go his own way once his need was met. Barclay concludes:

“He began with need, went on to gratitude, and finished with loyalty – and that is a perfect summary of the stages of discipleship.”

We have both been touched by Jesus and have been given the privilege of working with young people. Let us touch those we meet with the love of Christ.

Blessings,

David

Ideas for a sermon on the Gospel for 21st October

Mark 10:35-45: (NRSV)

The Request of James and John

35 James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, ‘Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.’³⁶And he said to them, ‘What is it you want me to do for you?’ ³⁷And they said to him, ‘Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.’ ³⁸But Jesus said to them, ‘You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?’ ³⁹They replied, ‘We are able.’ Then Jesus said to them, ‘The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized;⁴⁰but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.’

41 When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. ⁴²So Jesus called them and said to them, ‘You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. ⁴³But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, ⁴⁴and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. ⁴⁵For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’ 

It is said of Oliver Cromwell that he insisted that his portrait be painted ‘warts and all’ – and this is where the expression comes from. One of the interesting things about the Gospel of Mark, is that he is so honest – he tells the story of Jesus and the disciples ‘warts and all’. Some consider the difficult passages to be a hindrance; I have always felt that the disarming honesty gives both the Gospel and its truth credibility. James and John requesting places of honour is just such an instance. It is also a great comfort to me that the first disciples of Jesus were just ordinary people and, as Barclay puts it: “It was with people like ourselves that Jesus set out to change the world – and did it …”

James and John were ambitious; and they wanted to be Jesus’ first ministers of state. Jesus did think they were special as he had made them part of his inner circle. They were also people of means as their father had been well off enough to be able to hire servants (Mark 1:20). Barclay is probably right in suggesting that “… they rather snobbishly thought that their social responsibility entitled them to the first place …” They, like most people, want to get on in this life.

But it also tells that, despite all the warnings that Jesus had given them of his future, they still misunderstood. Jesus had made it plain to them that he was heading for the Cross so in the light of this, Barclay suggest that they their request is especially staggering! He adds a positive note, though, in showing how despite all this they still believed in him! They still associated this seemingly failed messiah with glory and so Barclay concludes: “Misguided James and John might be; the fact remains that their hearts were in the right place.”

Jesus’ reference to the ‘cup’ is interesting. This is a typical Jewish metaphor. It was custom at banquets for the king to hand the cup to his guests. The cup therefore became a metaphor for the life and experience that God handed out to people. This appears frequently in the Psalms: “My cup runs over …” (Psalm 23) and “… in the hand of the Lord is a cup …” (Psalm 75:8) Isaiah speaks of the disasters that had come over the people of Israel as them having drunk “… at the hand of the Lord the cup of His fury …” The cup therefore refers to ‘… the experience of allotted to men by God …’

Jesus also refers to ‘baptism’ which refers to either being dipped or submerged. So here, the reference has nothing to do with the sacrament of baptism he is saying – in Barclay’s paraphrase:

“… can you bear to go through the terrible experience which I have to go through? Can you face being submerged in hatred and pain and death, as I have to be?”

Jesus was making it clear that the Christian crown comes with a Cross. And indeed, James and John did face earthly crosses in their lives.

It is also true that the final destiny of any person is the prerogative of God. Jesus himself, never usurped the place of God as his whole life was one long act of submission to God the Father – one of the great mysteries of our faith.

Pertinent things to think about in the ambitious world we find ourselves in!

The other disciples were angry with James and John, not because they were being offensive of Jesus, but rather because they ‘… had tried to steal a march upon them and try to take an unfair advantage …’ The old controversy about who was the greatest began to rage once more. This could have wrecked the fellowship if Jesus had not taken immediate action. Once more Jesus had to explain to this stubborn lot that the ways of the world were wrong and that true greatness in the Kingdom of God was so different to anything in the world. In the world the standard of greatness is ‘power’ with the test being ‘How many people do I control? How many are at my beck and call? On how many people can I impose my will? In the Kingdom of Jesus, the standard of greatness is service; not in having others serve us but reducing oneself to their service; not what can I get – but what can I give.

Barclay points out that this is in fact just sound common sense and works in the world as well. In many industries, especially the motor industry the company that will do better than others will be the one that will promise to ‘… crawl under your car oftener and get themselves dirtier than any of the competitors, in other words, be prepared to give more service …’ In really fine organisations, the ordinary clerks go home at 5.30 pm, while the Chief Executive will work long into the night.

Barclay rightly points out that ‘… the basic trouble in the human situation is that people wish to do as little as possible and to get as much as possible …’ But it is only when we have the desire to put into life more than we take out – to serve others – that we will become happy and prosperous.

The world, and not only the Church needs people whose ideal is service. Jesus pointed to his own example – he had come to ‘… give his life as a ransom for many …’ More on this important statement next time.

I now focus on verse 45: “⁴⁵For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’”

Barclay suggests that this is one of the great phrases of the Gospel ‘… and yet it is a phrase that has been sadly mishandled and maltreated …’ because people have tried to develop a theory of atonement around what is essentially a saying of love. Once again, Barclay comes into his own by giving us an excellent historical overview.

In Church history, it was not long before people began asking to whom this ransom of the life of Christ had been paid!

(i)                 ORIGEN suggested that it could not have been paid to God, so was it then to the Evil one? The devil was holding us fast until the ransom was paid which was the life of Jesus. The devil had been deceived that he could have dominion over it but could not see that he could not bear the torture involved in retaining it! The devil, in the process discovered that he had bitten off more than he could chew.

(ii)               GREGORY OF NYSSA saw very easily that the problem with Origen’s theory was that it made the devil equal with God because it allows him to make a bargain with God on equal terms. Gregory therefore came up with another idea and that was that God played a trick on the devil. Jesus was seemingly helpless and weak through the incarnation – by becoming a mere human. The devil mistook Jesus for being a mere man and so was tricked because Jesus conquered him by his victory on the Cross.

(iii)             GREGORY THE GREAT expanded on this by using a fantastic metaphor. For him the incarnation was a divine strategy to catch the great leviathan: the deity of Christ was the hook and the flesh of Christ the bait. The bait was dangled before him and he swallowed it and so was overcome forever.

(iv)             PETER THE LOMBARD took it a further step referring to the Cross as a mousetrap and the blood of Jesus the bait.

Barclay concludes: “All this simply shows what happens when men take a lovely and precious picture and try to make a cold theory out of it …” and suggests the following instead.

Sorrow is the price of love. We would all agree that love is only possible with the potential at least for sorrow – but we never think of trying to explain to whom that price is ever paid! In similar way we would all agree that freedom can only be obtained at the price of blood, sweat and tears; but we never think of investigating to whom that price is paid. Barclay adds:

“This saying of Jesus is a simple and pictorial way of saying that, whatever else is true, it cost the life of Jesus Himself to bring men back from their sin to the love of God … the cost of our salvation was the Cross of Christ …”

We do not need to go beyond this; we cannot go beyond this. All we know and can say is that something happened on the Cross which opened for us the way to God! C F D Moule makes the point that it is not a New Testament idea that God required recompense rather that the death of an individual leads to the benefit of many.

Some lovely thoughts from Barclay and Moule …

PREPARATION FOR A SERMON FOR 14TH OCTOBER

Mark 10:17-31 (NRSV)

The Rich Man

17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ¹⁸Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. ¹⁹You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.” ’²⁰He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’²¹Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’ ²²When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions. ²³ Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!’ ²⁴And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, ‘Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! ²⁵It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.’ ²⁶They were greatly astounded and said to one another, ‘Then who can be saved?’ ²⁷Jesus looked at them and said, ‘For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.’ ²⁸ Peter began to say to him, ‘Look, we have left everything and followed you.’ ²⁹Jesus said, ‘Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, ³⁰who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields, with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. ³¹But many who are first will be last and the last will be first.’ 

The Rich Young Ruler is also difficult because it is so easy to think that it refers to someone else. But it has a message for us all. Moule points out that “… possessions can be a prison …’ Possessions - especially those we really like – can be a prison.

The young man before Jesus, by all accounts, was a lovely, good, upright man who had always lived a good life. But he lacked the readiness to take risks, to give up the security of wealth for the sake of others. Moule suggests that he also lacked the warm-hearted concern for others because he always calculated what it would cost him.

While I am by no stretch of the imagination ‘rich’, I fear I am afraid I am just like this!

What  is ‘eternal life’? I am sure we would all agree that it refers to life that never ends with our Lord, but I think it also refers to something that we experience now and not just when we die and leave this life. You will remember that flippant little comment that, as Christians, we experience not only ‘… pie in the sky when we die, but also steak on the plate while we wait …’ Moule suggests that we cannot have ‘real’ life without being prepared to lose life.

Jesus uses the proverb of a camel going through the eye of a needle and suggests that it would be easier for this to happen than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God! This is because attachment to possessions will hold them back. This is a telling comment, because I believe it means that our attachment to things of this world can rob us of real blessing even now and even for those of us who are followers of Christ. But the good news is that God can release us from this when we are reminded and have a glimpse of the real love of God. This was the experience of people like St Francis of Assisi who ‘… suddenly caught sight of the love of God …’ and as a result possessions became irrelevant. When I teach the Year 8 classes about the life and ministry of Mother Teresa, I always became aware of this yet again. When she died, all she had was two saris, a bucket (in which to wash the one she was not wearing) a pair of sandals and a cheap pen; but she was rich, because she had glimpsed the love of God in Christ.

Moule points out that Jesus is not saying that the only remedy is to give everything away – he is saying that we must possess our possessions rather than let them possess us. You will probably remember that excellent little book that really touched us when we were undergraduates, Richard Foster’s “A celebration of discipline”. He tells of being set free from his possessions by, when feeling that the attachment was becoming a problem, he gives them away.

Sometimes the rich need to keep their riches ‘… and bear the burden of using them wisely for the kingdom of God …’ but ‘burden’ is the right word for this is indeed what they can so easily become.

What a powerful thought. We are so blessed by all the good things we have, but we must not ever let them possess us.

So far, I have reflected on this passage using the wisdom of C F D Moule, but I now return to Barclay for my inspiration; and once again I am so blessed by this Godly man’s insight.

The young man ‘… ran up …’ to Jesus and was keen and enthusiastic – he also flattered Jesus by calling him ‘good’. Jesus needed to do a number of important things in the interests of this lovely young man: he needed to make sure that he was not taken away by the emotion of the moment and he needed to make sure that he focused on God and not Jesus the man. We need to hear this because it is so easy for young people to like us as we are blessed in being popular with them – but they must not commit to us – they must commit to God.

People today also fall into the trap of thinking that being respectable is enough. I have often heard it said: “I am a good person [meaning respectable], so if there is a God, I will be okay!” The commandments Jesus tested the young man on, are all those that refer to not doing anything bad to anyone else. Barclay writes: “Respectability, on the whole, consists in not doing things.” But being a disciple of Jesus means much more than this and says (in Barclay’s words):

“Get out of this moral respectability. Stop looking at goodness as consisting in not doing things. Take yourself, take all that you have, and spend yourself and your possessions for others. Then you will find true happiness inn time and in eternity.”

The man had never defrauded anyone, he had never stolen but neither had he ever been, nor could he make himself be positively and sacrificially generous. Being a Christian is not only about being respectable; it is about living for others. The young man could not do this!

I am wary of some evangelism that can focus on emotion, experience alone and personality; true evangelism includes the great cost of discipleship.

Jesus looked at the rich young man and loved him. He was not angered by the young man’s response, he just felt deeply for him. He was probably also sad for him, knowing that he was going to miss out on so much.

The disciples were shocked and amazed and this is simply because what Jesus was saying went against everything that society held to be true at the time (and sometimes even in some Christian circles today). They believed that if a person was prosperous, it meant that they were being blessed by God – ‘… prosperity was the sign of a good man …’ they did not see the danger of prosperity:

(i)                 Material possessions fix one’s life on the things of this world rather than on the things of God. “These are the things that make it difficult to die …”

(ii)               Material things make us think of everything in terms of price. (This makes me think that even the great C F D Moule probably read Barclay!) Living this way means that we lose sight of what really has value. The best things in life have no price and so money simply cannot buy – the most precious being our salvation.

Probably most importantly, the rich young man mistakenly thought he could earn his way into God’s favour. If salvation did depend on human effort, then it is impossible. But salvation is God’s gift – for all things are possible to God. The person who trusts in themselves and their possessions can never be saved.

Dear fellow Christian,

Thank you for reading my humble offerings. I hope that you will find them to be of some help, especially those who are preparing to lead worship and preach next Sunday. They are a little rough at the edges, but form the basis for my sermon preparation for next week. I would love to hear from you and enjoy your fellowship. If any are interested in making contact, but do not wish to sign up, please make contact to: d.owen@lesgrammar.org

God bless you,

David

Sermon on the Gospel for 7th October

Mark 10:2-16

2 Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ ³He answered them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ ⁴They said, ‘Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.’ ⁵But Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. ⁶But from the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.” ⁷“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, ⁸and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. ⁹Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ ¹⁰ Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.¹¹He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; ¹²and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’ ¹³ People were bringing little children to him in order that he might touch them; and the disciples spoke sternly to them. ¹⁴But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, ‘Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs. ¹⁵Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.’ ¹⁶And he took them up in his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed them.

I know we are dependent on Barclay for much of what we write, but I think we need to be reminded that this is one of the main purposes of this exercise; and that is to let this wise biblical scholar inform us as we journey together. I was comforted when reading the preface to C F D Moule’s commentary on the Gospel. As you know, he was one of the great New Testament scholars of the 20^th Century, being a senior professor at Cambridge. He wrote:

“This small book contains one or two ideas that, I think, are more or less original; but,. In the main, it owes so much to others that, if the normal method of acknowledgment had been adopted, it would have consisted largely of footnotes …”

In this passage – which deals with divorce and the blessing of little children - Barclay suggests, is all about the dignity of all people in the sight of God, especially women and children. Divorce was a burning question at the time and the Pharisees were testing Jesus. This could be for a number of reasons: (i) to bring him into conflict with Herod – for this was John the Baptist’s undoing; (ii) it would make him contradict the law of Moses, which would bring him into conflict with the religious authorities because he would be going against ‘sound doctrine’!

The issue was that divorce was very easy for any man, but almost impossible for a woman because they were regarded as mere ‘things’, with no legal rights and at the complete disposal of the male head of the family. A man could divorce his wife on almost any grounds – for some – even a spoilt dish of food – or if he found another woman more attractive!

So, Jesus was striking a blow for women by seeking to restore marriage to the position it ought to have had. Jesus explains that the Law of Moses on this issue was necessary because of the hardness of heart of the people. Barclay suggests that Matthew is right in adding that divorce could be legitimate on the grounds of adultery because this act already breaks the bond and so a divorce merely seals what has already happened.

Marriage is sacred and not merely for one’s pleasure – it is also a big responsibility. It is not only a physical union, but more importantly it is also a spiritual union. Barclay concludes that Jesus was ‘… building a rampart around the home …’

Women are as important as men and children (neglected in Jesus’ day) as well.

It is the most natural thing in the world for Jewish mothers to wish that their children be blessed by a great and distinguished rabbi. It was especially significant for this to happen on the child’s first birthday and it was this sort of thing that was happening as recorded in our reading. Barclay reminds us that it is important to remember that the context of this passage is set at a time when Jesus knew that he was on his way to the Cross. It was at such a time that Jesus had time for children; he took them in his arms, hugged them and probably played with them for a while.

The disciples probably just wanted to protect Jesus; they did not fully understand what was going on, but they probably understood enough to realise that tragedy (at least in their eyes) lay ahead. They did not want Jesus to be ‘bothered’ under the circumstances.

This tells us, yet again, a great deal about Jesus. As Barclay writes: “He was the kind of person who cared for children and for whom children cared.” He probably smiled easily and laughed joyously and so reveals a lot about the human Jesus. Jesus said: “… it is to such that the kingdom of God belongs …” Barclay suggests that Jesus was attracted to the following attributes of children:

(i)                  Humility: Children are embarrassed by prominence and publicity and they have not yet learned to discover the importance of himself;

(ii)                Obedience: A child’s natural instinct is to obey;

(iii)               Trust: Children tend to accept authority and has confidence in other people; they do not expect any people to be ‘bad’ people and believes rather the best about others;

(iv)              Short memory: Children have not yet learned to bear grudges and harbour bitterness; they forget so easily that it is almost that they have nothing to forgive …

This is what the kingdom of God is like!

Denis Nineham states that ‘… like many of the vivid scenes depicted in the Gospels, it contains a good deal more than may, at first, appear …’

It is probably that the disciples wanted to stop the mothers bringing their children to Jesus because they knew he was exhausted and wanted to protect him; but it is also possible that they did not feel that the families concerned were of the right sort thinking, implying that ‘… contact with Jesus is not for those too young to make a responsible decision upon his claims …’ The Church has often done the same thing! I am delighted that, since Gareth’s birth, he has been fully accepted into the Methodist Church. As soon as he was old enough for basic instruction, he has received Holy Communion – and now – he is a regular communicant (at the age of just 14) every week. Wesley claimed that this sacrament is a ‘saving ordinance’ in that it opens one up to the means of grace – and this is my prayer for my son.

Nineham points out that the word used for Jesus response (and translated as ‘indignant’) is nowhere else used for our Lord. He goes on the paint a similar picture to the one offered by Barclay of the characteristics of ‘children’ encouraged by our Lord, but with a different emphasis. Nineham suggests it is NOT the innocence, humility or obedience of children, but the unselfconscious, receptive nature of children and their contentment to be dependent upon others’ care and bounty concluding that ‘… it is this sort of spirit that the kingdom of God must be received …’ This is because becoming a member of the Kingdom is not something that we earn or deserve – is a free and unconditional gift of God; it must simply be accepted inasmuch as it can never be deserved. Nineham is of the view that this passage has been included in the Gospel narrative because it implies this important truth and it implies an aspect of the cost of discipleship – the cost of putting pride aside.

Nineham also includes the interesting observation that confirms why this passage has become integral to our understanding of infant baptism (and why it is used at many of our services when this sacrament is celebrated). He suggests that the role of Jesus is taken on by the presiding minister offering the free gift of God’s grace to those who are powerless in the process. Nineham concludes that the early Church needed this passage in developing their practice and therefore also their theology of infant baptism.

Free – it is all free – because Christ has paid the price for us. Nothing new, but always a wonderful thought!