Category: Uncategorized

The Warrior-Like Woman of Wisdom – Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 18B (Proverbs 31)

Proverbs 31:10-31 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

¹⁰A capable wife who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels.
¹¹The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will have no lack of gain.
¹²She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.
¹³She seeks wool and flax,
and works with willing hands.
¹⁴She is like the ships of the merchant,
she brings her food from far away.
¹⁵She rises while it is still night
and provides food for her household
and tasks for her servant-girls.
¹⁶She considers a field and buys it;
with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.
¹⁷She girds herself with strength,
and makes her arms strong.
¹⁸She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
Her lamp does not go out at night.
¹⁹She puts her hands to the distaff,
and her hands hold the spindle.
²⁰She opens her hand to the poor,
and reaches out her hands to the needy.
²¹She is not afraid for her household when it snows,
for all her household are clothed in crimson.
²²She makes herself coverings;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.
²³Her husband is known in the city gates,
taking his seat among the elders of the land.
²⁴She makes linen garments and sells them;
she supplies the merchant with sashes.
²⁵Strength and dignity are her clothing,
and she laughs at the time to come.
²⁶She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.
²⁷She looks well to the ways of her household,
and does not eat the bread of idleness.
²⁸Her children rise up and call her happy;
her husband too, and he praises her:
²⁹“Many women have done excellently,
but you surpass them all.”
³⁰Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
³¹Give her a share in the fruit of her hands,
and let her works praise her in the city gates.

******************

As a preacher in the twenty-first century, I might choose to pass by this passage that closes out the Book of Proverbs. Here is a woman who works from sun up to sun down so her husband can sit at the city gates and talk politics with the other men in town. A wife like the one described here is truly worth far more than precious jewels. She is indispensable. She gets up early, does all the work of the family, is a business woman, and a purveyor of wisdom. As she engages in all this work, her husband enjoys a life of leisure. I know that the passage has been used as the basis of many a Mother’s Day sermon. The preacher probably thinks he (it will be a he) is honoring the mothers in the room for their hard work. All I can say is that if you use this on Mother’s Day, be careful, because the message conveyed might be that to be a good wife and mother, one must be Superwoman. As a man, I’d rather not have that message returned to me—that is, I hope I don’t have to be a superhero to be a good husband and father.

The NRSV opens with the words “a capable wife who can find?” The message here might be one of usefulness. When we read through the passage, it’s clear that it emphasizes the capable wife’s industriousness and her leadership abilities. This allows her husband to put his trust in her. That is all well and good, and yet it may hold up an impossible ideal, especially if in a patriarchal context a wife/woman is expected to be someone no man would be expected to be. I can imagine many a woman looking at this list, perhaps feeling inspired (at first) but then overwhelmed by the expectations.

So, maybe there is a different message inherent in this passage. Maybe the utilitarianism of the NRSV translation leads us astray. Kathleen O’Connor suggests that the NRSV translation isn’t strong enough. Better is the translation a “strong woman;” or even better is “warriorlike woman.” Now we are moving in a new direction. This warrior-like woman could be, and I think is, Lady Wisdom (Gk. Sophia). O’Connor writes that “she is a mysterious figure who greatly rewards anyone who settles down to live in her household” [Feasting on the Word, p. 75]. Since this is the closing chapter of the Book of Proverbs, which personifies Wisdom as a woman, it makes sense that this passage would have wisdom in mind. Thus, O’Connor writes that “her behavior summarizes the virtues of wise living promulgated by the book and enjoyed by anyone who follows her call” [p. 75]. In other words, this “capable wife” is a model not just for mothers and wives, but for all of us. This is the ideal of wisdom personified.

If we adopt the translation here “warrior-like woman,” then perhaps we can discern the power of Wisdom to form our lives as we live in the world. The path of Wisdom does good, not harm. It is industrious. It is productive. It is discerning. As we have seen before, for the writer of Proverbs, Wisdom is concerned about those who are poor and living on the margins. It is not self-serving.

Yes, the “ode” is written in a patriarchal culture and expresses patriarchal elements, but the point here is not whether marriage is egalitarian or inegalitarian, concepts likely unknown to the culture that produced this word. While this is true, I do think we can take something important from the passage regarding the role of women in society. At the very least the writer of this song recognizes and acknowledges that women can be wise, industrious, and capable. In other words, it counters the lie that has been told, often in Christian circles that women are inferior to men, can’t engage in business, or serve as leaders. That the author could conceive of women operating in these roles should be the final nail in the coffin that limits women’s place in church and society. We need not expect any woman or any person to embody all these traits. We simply need to affirm the possibility that women are as capable as men to live a life of wisdom.

If we can affirm the place of women in society, and acknowledge that women can be powerful persons, that is “warrior-like” then we can better envision Wisdom as our path of life. As Kenneth Carter puts it:

Wisdom maybe defined as a life well lived, a life that matters. Wisdom in the Bible is not enlightenment. Rather, wisdom is a lifetime of obedience to God, discipline honed in daily decisions. . .. In scripture wisdom is a way of life that includes justice, righteousness, humility, compassion and fairness” [Feasting on the Word, p. 76].

The woman portrayed here embodies these traits, and we are encouraged to follow in her footsteps. It may be more aspirational than descriptive, but it is a goal toward which we might move.

Robert Cornwall is the Pastor of Central Woodward Christian Church in Troy, Michigan. He holds the Ph.D. in Historical Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is the author of a number of books including Out of the Office (Energion, 2017), Marriage in Interesting Times (Energion, 2016), and Freedom in Covenant (Wipf and Stock, 2015) and blogs at Ponderings on a Faith Journey.

Wisdom Calls – A Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 17B (Proverbs 1)

Proverbs 1:20-33 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

²⁰Wisdom cries out in the street;
in the squares she raises her voice.
²¹At the busiest corner she cries out;
at the entrance of the city gates she speaks:
²²“How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
and fools hate knowledge?
²³Give heed to my reproof;
I will pour out my thoughts to you;
I will make my words known to you.
²⁴Because I have called and you refused,
have stretched out my hand and no one heeded,
²⁵and because you have ignored all my counsel
and would have none of my reproof,
²⁶I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when panic strikes you,
²⁷when panic strikes you like a storm,
and your calamity comes like a whirlwind,
when distress and anguish come upon you.
²⁸Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer;
they will seek me diligently, but will not find me.
²⁹Because they hated knowledge
and did not choose the fear of the Lord,
³⁰would have none of my counsel,
and despised all my reproof,
³¹therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way
and be sated with their own devices.
³²For waywardness kills the simple,
and the complacency of fools destroys them;
³³but those who listen to me will be secure
and will live at ease, without dread of disaster.”

^********

How long before Wisdom’s call will be answered? The failure to heed the call of wisdom has important consequences. Should we hate knowledge, should we choose not to “fear the Lord” disaster awaits us. The word we hear in this passage is not encouraging. That it is found in the first chapter of Proverbs should serve as a warning. Ignore Wisdom to your own detriment. So, wake up. Look around. Pay attention. Give heed to knowledge. Don’t bury your head in the sand. Wisdom has taken her place in the streets, on the street corners, crying out at anyone who will listen and heed her warnings? Perhaps like the preacher who stands and the corner and shouts at the passersby, we ignore her words. The word here is that we do so at our own peril?

It’s easy to ignore the sidewalk preacher. We scoff at the message and the messenger, and yet perhaps there is a word that needs to be heard. We live at a time when people are uncertain about the future. We are skeptical of our leaders. We don’t trust them. We’re willing to entrust our government to inexperienced hands, and even hands that might be dangerous. Only time will tell, but are we listening to Wisdom’s counsel? Or are we simply wandering around in a daze, heading off a cliff?

What should we make of this word? As I ponder this word from Wisdom herself, there are many situations that come to mind. Having lived through the hottest summer on record, I’m ready to heed the warning that climate change is at work. In my homeland of California and Oregon, fire season is getting longer and more devastating. Why? Heat, drought. Climate. Of course, not everyone agrees with the science, nor, apparently, their eyes and ears. But Wisdom warns us—ignorance is not bliss. We ignore the warnings at our peril.She tells us that if we give heed to her words, she will pour out her wisdom. If ignore them. Well . . .

There is good news. If we heed the words of Wisdom, we will dwell secure. That offer of blessing might be a bit premature, but it is a reminder that in most cases, when we pay attention to the facts we will be better off. Not in every case, of course, but normally. Whenever I read the Book of Proverbs, I keep in mind the counter voice of Job. He was righteous. He did was right. Bad things still happened to him. Bad things do happen to good people. But, while that is true, we can, should we choose to heed Wisdom’s warnings, work against those bad things, and perhaps turn things in a different direction.

Life is filled with choices. We can heed the warnings, or we can ignore them. It is true that if we tune Wisdom out, Wisdom may cease calling out to us. Again, that is at our peril. We don’t to wait until its too late to listen. Listening is best done in community. J.B. Blue writes: “Life is lived in community, and we who seek to live wisely bear responsibility to consider the consequences of personal and social choices.” We must listen for those consequences in every area of our lives. [Preaching God’s Transforming Justice, p. 396].

Wisdom calls out to us. Wisdom warns us of danger. Wisdom points us in the right direction. Will we heed the call?

Picture Attribution: Lamp of Wisdom, from Art in the Christian Tradition, a project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, Nashville, TN. http://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=54977 [retrieved September 8, 2018]. Original source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rowanbank/5815103193/.

Robert Cornwall is the Pastor of Central Woodward Christian Church in Troy, Michigan. He holds the Ph.D. in Historical Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is the author of a number of books including Out of the Office (Energion, 2017), Marriage in Interesting Times (Energion, 2016), and Freedom in Covenant (Wipf and Stock, 2015) and blogs at Ponderings on a Faith Journey.

The Wisdom of Justice – Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 16B (Proverbs 22)

South American Potluck – Emily Schaefer

Proverbs 22:1-2, 8-9, 22-23 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

22 A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches,

and favor is better than silver or gold.

2 The rich and the poor have this in common:

the Lord is the maker of them all.

8 Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity,

and the rod of anger will fail.

9 Those who are generous are blessed,

for they share their bread with the poor.

22 Do not rob the poor because they are poor,

or crush the afflicted at the gate;

23 for the Lord pleads their cause

and despoils of life those who despoil them.

****************

It is said that you can prove just about anything from Scripture. There is some truth to this, as people have been from time immemorial scouring scripture for proof-texts to support all manner of positions, from the support of slavery to the suppression of women. When it comes to the Book of Proverbs, there are texts that seem to support the premise that wealth is a sign of divine blessing, and that poverty is a sign of divine judgment. Consider a word like this: “I walk in the way of righteousness, along the paths of justice, endowing with wealth those who love me, and filling their treasuries” (Prov. 8:20-21). Such a vision can lead to what is known as the “retribution dogma.” It is a dogma that has ancient roots and continues to be popular. It is used to support the idea of a prosperity doctrine, but it is also used as support for the idea that the poor are to blame for their poverty. While it is true that in some cases poverty is the result of bad choices, this is not always true. It might not be true in most cases. But you have heard it said, perhaps even from the pulpit, that if you are poor, it must be because you are lazy or spend your money on things you shouldn’t. The corresponding message is that if you really wanted to rise out of poverty, you would take the necessary steps to get yourself out of your poverty. After all, doesn’t scripture say that “God helps those who help themselves?” Just a reminder—there is no such biblical passage.

The reading from Proverbs 22 offers a counter proposal, suggesting that whether we are rich or poor, we are all created by God. Whatever the reason for one’s poverty or wealth, we are all created by God, and therefore bear God’s image. This means as those created by God (and as Genesis 1 reminds us, we’re created in the image of God), are equal in the sight of God. As for riches, well a good name is better!

You might say that these passages are an expression of the social gospel, suggesting that justice for the poor is a mark of wisdom. Consider for a moment the message of verse 8: “Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity, and the rod of anger will fail.” Now there is a word of judgment here, but it is directed at those who engage in injustice. They will suffer the judgment of God. If those who are unjust will experience judgment, in verse 9 we read that “those who are generous are blessed, for they share their bread with the poor.” Some might read this to suggest that all that is needed is charity. Bread is enough. There is no need for the church to get involved in advocating for policies on the part of the government that would alleviate poverty. I do not believe that this is the case. This is the baseline. We should care for those in need, but that doesn’t mean we leave the conditions that lead to poverty untouched. That would, in my mind, involve sowing injustice.

The third set of verses (22-23), makes this much clearer. First, we hear the word: “Do not rob the poor because they are poor, or crush the afflicted at the gate.” Here, I’m reminded of the parable that Nathan told David, after David took Bathsheba, sexually assaulted her, and then had her husband killed—something about a lamb (2 Sam. 12:1-14). The poor are often poor because they are defenseless. They are easily exploited. As it is said, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Some might bring in the principles of “social Darwinism” (not to be confused with biological evolution, which this idea seeks to emulate socially)—those who are the fittest will survive and be successful.

The word that follows speaks of God’s role in all of this. In verse 23 we hear the that “the Lord pleads their cause and despoils of life those who despoil them.” Could this be a foundational text for the principle of God’s “preferential option for the poor”? In a passage from the New Testament, the Letter of James warns against showing partiality to the rich over the poor. Indeed, James writes to the people of God: “Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him?” (James 2:5B). In fact, James suggests that his readers might want to remember that it is the rich not the poor who oppress them. The lectionary invites us to consider the words of James and the writer of Proverbs, recognizing that if there is a place for favoritism, it is on behalf of the poor.

As we consider the message of these verses from Proverbs 22, we should take into consideration the overall ambivalence present in Proverbs concerning wealth and poverty. We should not forget that here, in chapter 22, we have a word that declares that “The reward for humility and fear of the Lord is riches and honor and life” (vs. 4). When we read a word like this, it is natural for us to take the next step and assume that poverty is the mark of arrogance and rejection of God’s authority. Thus, as Julia O’Brien suggests:

The wise interpreter, then, will find a way to honor this ambiguity as well as to honor the insistence of Proverbs on integrity, wisdom, and justice. One way to do so is to recognize how a given claim to truth resonates differently in different life contexts; another is to listen to the life stories and life truths of others. [Feasting on the Word, p. 31].

This is a wise word to us. Let us listen to the stories of others before making rash judgments. There are wealthy people who are righteous, and wealthy people who are unjust. The same can be said for those on the other end of the spectrum. For this week, however, let us hear the word of wisdom that God is truly concerned about the lives of those who are poor, and as the people of God, we should share that concern.

Picture Attribution: Emily Schaffer. South American Potluck, from Art in the Christian Tradition, a project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, Nashville, TN. http://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=54157 [retrieved September 3, 2018]. Original source: Emily Schaffer.

Arise My Love – Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 15B (Song of Solomon)

Song of Solomon 2:8-13 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

⁸The voice of my beloved!
Look, he comes,
leaping upon the mountains,
bounding over the hills.
⁹My beloved is like a gazelle
or a young stag.
Look, there he stands
behind our wall,
gazing in at the windows,
looking through the lattice.
¹⁰My beloved speaks and says to me:
“Arise, my love, my fair one,
and come away;
¹¹for now the winter is past,
the rain is over and gone.
¹²The flowers appear on the earth;
the time of singing has come,
and the voice of the turtledove
is heard in our land.
¹³The fig tree puts forth its figs,
and the vines are in blossom;
they give forth fragrance.
Arise, my love, my fair one,
and come away.

*********************

The Pentecost journey through the Hebrew Bible, at least the pathway I’ve chosen, leads us to this selection from the Song of Solomon. The prior week’s reading invited us to consider Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Temple. Solomon was renowned for his wisdom, at least that is the word we hear from Scripture. Therefore, with the story of Solomon’s wisdom providing the background, we turn to readings attributed to Solomon. He might not have written the Song of Solomon or the Book of Proverbs (the lectionary takes us to the book of Proverbs over the next few weeks). These readings come from the section of the Hebrew Bible that we call “The Writings,” and contain much of the Wisdom literature of the Bible.

The Song of Solomon, also known as Song of Songs and Canticles, has a distinctly erotic element, that is often softened in Christian readings by way of allegory. Perhaps it is due to Solomon’s reputation as one who had hundreds of wives and concubines, so that he would understand the power of erotic love, that this song is attributed to him. Due to his own experience, he could write authoritatively about human relationships and human sexuality. When one reads from the Song of Songs, with its powerful erotic imagery, it is understandable, that early Christians sought to allegorize it. Thus, while on the surface this is a song sung by two lovers, it is often read allegorically to describe the relationship of Christ and Church.

While it is doubtful that the original author of this song envisioned it being applied to Christ and Church, allegory and midrash are interpretative schemes that are not determined by the original intent but are meant to speak to the current situation. As to the gender of the author, while it is attributed to Solomon, a man, Renita Weems suggests the possibility that the author is a woman, due to “the preponderance of female speakers and experiences in the book.” Based on the language used in the song, she suggests that “it is not farfetched to imagine that the lyrics were inspired by someone (a woman) from an elite class who, at least modestly educated, was familiar with the Hebrew lyrical heritage and aware of prevailing assumptions about the role of women and the prohibitions against marriages crossing class and ethnic lines” [“Song of Songs,” NIB, 5:365].

In my book Marriage in Interesting Times, I have a chapter that looks at chapters 7-8 of the Song of Solomon, exploring the Bible’s witness to the importance of sexual intimacy in relationship to marriage. In that chapter I note that while the allegorical reading is possible, we should not miss the witness of the song to the “beauty of embodied human love” (Marriage in Interesting Times, p. 47). Read straight this is a portion of a love song sung by the one who awaits her lover, who is bounding across the mountains toward her. The invitation that goes out is simple: “Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.”

The voice of the one who sings this song about the beloved would appear to be a woman, awaiting her beloved to come and get her. Her lover “is like a gazelle or a young stag.” He bounds over hills to come to her and call her to him. The winter is past. The rains have come and gone. The flowers have broken forth across the land. The fig trees are beginning to bear fruit. It is spring time in the land, and therefore it’s time to go on a journey. It’s possible that this is a forbidden union, which requires her beloved to come to her with stealth. This a song of passionate love that overcomes, it would seem, barriers being erected to keep the two lovers apart (Romeo and Juliet without the tragic ending?).

What should we, the modern Christian reader, take from this passage? Why does it appear in the lectionary? What does it say about intimacy—with God? Within a relationship of love? We often speak of the relationship of God and humanity using the Greek word agape. It is the central term used in the New Testament to describe the relationship between God and humanity. But what role, spiritually, might eros play in our relationship with God? How might God be, as Augustine and others suggested, be the beloved suitor? Renita Weems writes that “the poet uses the language and imagery of a rustic, semi-pastoral culture to evoke passion and desire” [Weems, NIB, 5:395].

While the word eros doesn’t appear in the New Testament, with Paul preferring agape, Tom Oord suggests that Paul “uses language that has eros meanings.” By that he means that Paul speaks of striving for that which is good and beautiful, just and honorable. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 14:1, Paul speaks of pursuing love, which Tom believes is an expression of eros without using the word [Nature of Love, pp. 49-50]. The value of a text like Song of Solomon is that it allows us to broaden our vision of life in the presence of God. For one thing, it celebrates romantic love, an idea I have explored in my biblical study of marriage. Such love is warranted by God. It is a good and perfect gift of God to humanity, not only for perpetuation of the species, but to build relationships between two people, sometimes, as it seems here, crossing those societal walls. It also invites us to consider the possibility of the pursuit of God. Sometimes we are led to believe that only God pursues, that we are passive in the relationship with God. But such is not the vision expressed here. It is a mutual pursuit.

The word that appears twice in this passage is the invitation to “arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.” As we ponder this passage and its meaning for us, might we see this, admittedly allegorically, as an invitation on the part of God to join with God in the journey of faith? Winter is in the past and spring is at hand. This could be seen as an invitation to enjoy God’s grace that transforms. Susan Henry-Crowe interprets the interplay between the two persons in terms of playfulness. Transformation is the product of “playful grace.” Thus, she writes: “Whether the Song is read as a love story between two people or as an allegory about God’s love for all creation, its beauty is that it invites all humankind to play as if life and love depended upon it (as they do)” [Feasting on the Word, p. 6]. Let us, therefore, arise and go away with the one who calls our names, and enjoy the blessings of God’s grace (and human intimacy as well!).

Robert Cornwall is the Pastor of Central Woodward Christian Church in Troy, Michigan. He holds the Ph.D. in Historical Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is the author of a number of books including Out of the Office (Energion, 2017), Marriage in Interesting Times (Energion, 2016), and Freedom in Covenant (Wipf and Stock, 2015) and blogs at Ponderings on a Faith Journey.

God’s Dwelling Place – A Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 14B

1 Kings 8:22-30,41-43 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

22 Then Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, and spread out his hands to heaven. 23 He said, “O Lord, God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven above or on earth beneath, keeping covenant and steadfast love for your servants who walk before you with all their heart, 24 the covenant that you kept for your servant my father David as you declared to him; you promised with your mouth and have this day fulfilled with your hand. 25 Therefore, O Lord, God of Israel, keep for your servant my father David that which you promised him, saying, ‘There shall never fail you a successor before me to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your children look to their way, to walk before me as you have walked before me.’ 26 Therefore, O God of Israel, let your word be confirmed, which you promised to your servant my father David.

27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you, much less this house that I have built! 28 Regard your servant’s prayer and his plea, O Lord my God, heeding the cry and the prayer that your servant prays to you today; 29 that your eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which you said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that you may heed the prayer that your servant prays toward this place. 30 Hear the plea of your servant and of your people Israel when they pray toward this place; O hear in heaven your dwelling place; heed and forgive.

41 “Likewise when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a distant land because of your name 42 —for they shall hear of your great name, your mighty hand, and your outstretched arm—when a foreigner comes and prays toward this house, 43 then hear in heaven your dwelling place, and do according to all that the foreigner calls to you, so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and so that they may know that your name has been invoked on this house that I have built.

**********************

God is everywhere. God is above us, around us, perhaps below us. Whether we feel that presence or not, we confess by faith that God is there. We call it omnipresence. If God is omnipresent, then why bother with buildings? Why not worship out in nature? Many people claim to do just that. In the story of Israel, it is said that God moved around with the people, dwelling in a tent. When the people finally settled down, David wanted to build a more permanent house for God. After all, David had a nice house. Shouldn’t God have one also? The word sent to David through Nathan the prophet was that no such request had ever been made by God (2 Samuel 7). God was fine with the tent! But, the Ark of the Covenant wouldn’t rest a tent forever. According to the story-line, the job of house-building would fall to his heir. Here in 1 Kings 8, David’s son and heir Solomon gets to dedicate that house, the temple of God. Apparently, God gave into the need of the people to have a more permanent space to approach God. Nonetheless, the question is, does God need a house?

When Solomon builds this house for God, Solomon is quite aware that God is bigger than any house, no matter how grand. In fact, heaven itself cannot contain God. Nonetheless, the Temple is built, and it serves as a sign of God’s presence with the people. The first lesson from the lectionary, continues the story of Solomon, the successor to David (his son by Bathsheba). In the previous week’s reading, Solomon succeeds his father, consolidates his power, and famously prays for wisdom—^“Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, able to discern between good and evil; for who can govern this your great people?” God responds positively to this request (1 Kings 3:3-14). Having established his rule, Solomon has turned to building a house for God, the house promised to David, but which David would not build.

The question for us concerns not only the process of building Solomon’s Temple, but its meaning for today. There is a debate underway as to the spiritual value of church buildings. Why expend money on something like a building when that money could be used for other things. After all, many church buildings are used only a few days a week at most. Then there are debates as to the form of a building. What is its purpose? Is it designed to reflect the sacred, the sacramental, or is it more utilitarian? In the medieval period, churches great and small were built to remind the people of the sacred. Visit a cathedral in Europe, and you might stand in awe. These churches were often built, not in a day but over several centuries. I am in the process of writing a chapter of a book on sacred architecture during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Reading about these buildings, and the design purpose is illuminating. They were often designed both to tell stories and to reflect the tastes of their patrons. Then again, there are those plain style churches that marked New England, buildings that were designed not for sacraments but for preaching. The same is true today. Some build auditoriums that are no different than a concert hall. Perhaps lacking any symbolism, even a cross. Others may still desire to build sanctuaries that cry out the sacramental and the sacred. Preaching may be still central, but so might the Table. Still, the question remains as to whether God requires a building so that we might encounter God?

In Solomon’s prayer dedicating the Temple, he recognizes that God is bigger than the building. However, he also understands the power of the Temple as a sign of that presence. Solomon prays that God will be attentive to the prayers either offered within the Temple, or toward the Temple. Why? Because God has placed God’s name on that Temple. The name of God, in ancient Judaism, was sacred. It is why one should not take God’s name in vain (that means more than cussing). Jesus spoke of this—don’t swear by the Temple, which should give us pause about using the Bible as a device upon which we swear to tell the truth or fulfill an office (Matt. 5:33-37). So, be careful how you speak and pray, so that you do not take God’s name in vain.

Returning to Solomon’s prayer and the way in which we approach the sacred, what role does the building play? What role the furnishings? There is a move today for preachers to abandon the pulpit or replace the wooden or stone pulpit with a clear plastic one. It is said that such a move makes one more transparent or real. I wonder, however, if this move makes the preacher the focus rather than the word delivered. In other words, is not the pulpit more than a stand upon which we put our notes? Could it be that it is a reminder that the word spoken is not just that of the preacher, but is a sacred word? Thus, the pulpit is a sacred symbol. The same could be said about the Table. I’m all for understanding the Table as a gathering place rather than an altar. I believe that fits with Jesus’ institution. But it too provides a symbol of God’s presence. That does seem to fit with Solomon’s prayer. Solomon asks that God heed the prayers offered in or toward the Temple, for ours is a faith that has a material element to it. In fact, isn’t that the core Christian message? That the Word of God became incarnate, dwelling among us.

While the building doesn’t contain God, the building has a message to send. It may speak of the sacred. Or, it might suggest that church is more like a community gathering, with music and speaker. It’s religious, but not necessarily “sacred.”

We don’t have all of 1 Kings in front of us. Once again, the lectionary creators have abridged the conversation, with the focus on Solomon’s prayer. While not all the prayer is included, it is appropriate to note that the “foreigner” is mentioned. That word is especially poignant right now, when a nativist spirit has taken hold in the United States. Even Christians have embraced the fear of the other. Yet, here we have a prayer that offers welcome to the foreigner. This is a prayer asking God to bless the foreigner who comes to Jerusalem to pray. Heed this prayer, the people pray. God responds positively!

The question here is whether God needs a house. It appears that God may not need a house, but God has chosen to put God’s name on a house so that the people might have a tangential reminder of their connection with God. Thus, it helps us spiritually to have that tangible reminder, that a church building provides, especially one that is not completely utilitarian!

Rebellion in the Household – a Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 12B (2 Samuel 18)

2 Samuel 18:5-9, 15,31-33 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

5 The king ordered Joab and Abishai and Ittai, saying, “Deal gently for my sake with the young man Absalom.” And all the people heard when the king gave orders to all the commanders concerning Absalom.

6 So the army went out into the field against Israel; and the battle was fought in the forest of Ephraim. 7 The men of Israel were defeated there by the servants of David, and the slaughter there was great on that day, twenty thousand men. 8 The battle spread over the face of all the country; and the forest claimed more victims that day than the sword.

9 Absalom happened to meet the servants of David. Absalom was riding on his mule, and the mule went under the thick branches of a great oak. His head caught fast in the oak, and he was left hanging between heaven and earth, while the mule that was under him went on.

15 And ten young men, Joab’s armor-bearers, surrounded Absalom and struck him, and killed him.

31 Then the Cushite came; and the Cushite said, “Good tidings for my lord the king! For the Lord has vindicated you this day, delivering you from the power of all who rose up against you.” 32 The king said to the Cushite, “Is it well with the young man Absalom?” The Cushite answered, “May the enemies of my lord the king, and all who rise up to do you harm, be like that young man.”

33 The king was deeply moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept; and as he went, he said, “O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!”

********************************

When Nathan the Prophet appeared before David, after he took Bathsheba, bedded her, and had her husband killed, the prophet told the king that things would go badly for him. He might not die, but there would be consequences. Such is the rest of the story. First one of his sons raped a half-sister (the sister of Absalom). This led to Absalom gaining revenge on Amnon, by having him killed. That led to Absalom’s exile, and later rebellion. I fact, Absalom at first gained the upper hand, getting himself crowned as Israel’s king in place of his father David, who ended up fleeing Jerusalem. That leads us to this week’s reading from 2 Samuel.

Many of us learned, as we grew up, that David was a man after God’s heart. We think of him as a righteous man, whose rightful successor (as Christians) is Jesus. If we attend to the story in 2 Samuel, we see a man who is not a great husband, father, and at times ruler. Perhaps the image of David the harp-playing song writer that has formed our opinion of him. It might be best to simply acknowledge that David was a complicated man—as we are also complicated human beings. There is light and there is darkness in each of us. Hopefully the good outweighs the bad, and perhaps it did with David, but we must admit that he might not be the best role model for our children.

Among those who came to believe that David was not only an unfit father, but an unfit ruler, was his son Absalom. Like his father Absalom was a beloved figure—handsome and strong, a true leader. He advisors, some of whom had advised David, who pushed him toward rebellion. Civil war has broken out between the tribes of Israel who have been persuaded that Absalom is a better choice than David. For his part, David raised an army led by three generals. In our passage for the week David’s forces defeat Absalom’s forces in battle.

The lectionary creators, as they often do, has chosen to abridge the reading, but we have enough to put things together. We have before us a reading composed of three parts—verses 5-9, verse 15, and verses 31-33.

The first part, verses 5-9, begins with David’s request that his generals deal gently with Absalom, that is, if they manage to defeat Absalom’s army. They are in fact successful in their battle. David’s army defeats Absalom’s army that was gathered from the tribes of Israel (remember that David had originally ruled only the tribe of Judah, only later, after Saul’s death, did he control the entire country), putting to flight Absalom and his troops that were not slaughtered in battle. The first section ends with Absalom, who was trying to escape through the forest, getting caught up in the branches of a tree. The passage isn’t clear as to what happened, but it is possible that his hair got caught up in the branches of a tree as he was quickly moving through the forest on his mule, which left him behind, hanging between heaven and earth.

Part two is but one verse, verse 15. We are told that Joab’s guard, Joab being David’s leading general, caught up with Absalom and found him hanging from the tree. Instead of being gentle with him, as David requested, Joab’s men choose to strike and kill him (this occurs after verse 14 suggests that Joab put three spears into Absalom’s heart, raising questions as to how there was enough life in him for the guards to kill). Thus, the rebellion is brought to a conclusion. Absalom met the fate that one would expect of the leader of a failed rebellion. David should be happy, correct? Perhaps not.

This leads us to the final section, verses 31-33. We’re told that a Cushite, one of Joab’s men, went to David to announce the “good news.” The Cushite declares: “the Lord has vindicated you this day, delivering you from the power of all who rose up against you.” That a man from Cush, in Africa, was part of Joab’s entourage, suggests that David’s army was made up of mercenaries. Of course, sending this man to deliver what Joab knew would be bad news, might have been a ploy to protect someone higher up, who would normally report David. After all, David has not always responded well to bad news. In any case, it is in his response to this news that we see the side of David we have come to love. He inquired as to the situation of his son Absalom. While the messenger joyously declares that Absalom is dead, David responds not with joy, but with grief.

When David heard the fate of his son, the one who had usurped his throne and rebelled against him, driving him from Jerusalem, he went away and wept. The words are moving: “O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!” These are words that touch the hearts of parents. While not all parents would respond as did David, parents will grieve the death of a child, even a child who has chosen to disobey or rebel. This is flesh of one’s flesh, and bone of one’s bone. If we’re able, we can hear the pain present in David’s heart. Perhaps we have experienced something similar, and we can identify with him. Even if this isn’t our experience, we who are parents can feel the loss.

At the same time, the story does diminish David. As Arthur Van Seters notes, “in the overall story David is a leader of war; domestically he is a disaster.” This leads to the question of approach. Do we focus on the failed leader, whose army can win battles, but whose rule is problematic, or do we focus on “the domestic perspective of a persistent parental love even for a wayward offspring?” (Preaching God’s Transforming Justice, p. 353). At the end we must admit that this is a rather unsettling story, as much of 2 Samuel is unsettling. As we give attention to the passage, we ought to reflection the militarization of our society. While I’m not a pacifist, I am deeply concerned about the way in which we seem quick to turn to violence to further our aims, both in the country of my citizenship and elsewhere in the world. Here again, there is the importance of grief, as a response to the tragedy of war.

As this reading is paired in the lectionary with Psalm 130, we can hear David crying out from the depths: “Lord, hear my voice! Let your ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications!” This cry of the heart is rooted in the hope that God’s steadfast love will redeem and sustain the one who cries out to God.

Picture attribution: Chagall, Marc, 1887-1985. David weeps for Absalom, from Art in the Christian Tradition, a project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, Nashville, TN. http://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=55329 [retrieved August 6, 2018]. Original source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clicks2006/4150086667/.

I Have Sinned! A Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 11B — 2 Samuel 11-12

2 Samuel 11:26-12:13 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

²⁶When the wife of Uriah heard that her husband was dead, she made lamentation for him. ²⁷When the mourning was over, David sent and brought her to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a son.

But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord, 12 ¹and the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. ²The rich man had very many flocks and herds; ³but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his meager fare, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. ⁴Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was loath to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared that for the guest who had come to him.” ⁵Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man. He said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; ⁶he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

⁷Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus, says the Lord, the God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel, and I rescued you from the hand of Saul; ⁸I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added as much more. ⁹Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. ¹⁰Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, for you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. ¹¹Thus says the Lord: I will raise up trouble against you from within your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this very sun. ¹²For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.” ¹³David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

******************

“It’s good to be the king!” Those are the words of Louis XVI as portrayed by Mel Brooks in History of the World, Part One. King David may have had similar thoughts when he spied Bathsheba bathing, while his army was off fighting his battles. When the king calls, you come. That’s just the way things work when a person has absolute power, or at least thinks that she or he has absolute power. David was king. He held absolute power, in part because no one in the inner circle would speak up. His closest associates, either out of devotion or out of fear, would keep silent. In other words, they were enablers of his darkest side. In the verses prior David had commanded the wife of Uriah (she is not yet named) be brought to him so he could engage in a sexual relationship with her. He saw some “thing” (I use thing here purposely), coveted it, and his aides made it happen. The question here is not whether the relationship was consensual, because in a situation like this the power differential is too great for anything to be called consensual. Bathsheba was not in a position to refuse David’s demands. As Grace Ji-Sun Kim points out “the passage plays on the dynamics between rich and poor, the powerful and the powerless, and the intimacy of husband and wife versus sexual domination by a powerful man.” [Preaching God’s Transforming Justice, p. 343]

David’s problem here is that things happened that led to a cover up, and the cover up led to discovery. What happened here is that the wife of Uriah got pregnant, while her husband was at the front fighting David’s battles. David had a problem on his hands. Bathsheba was pregnant, her husband was away at the front and thus wasn’t in the position to be the father, and David figured that fingers would point at him. So, he came up with a plan designed to protect his power. And he was king, and when in power you do what you must do to maintain that power. His first attempt was to bring Uriah home, hoping he would share his wife’s bed. That way, when she child was born, everyone would think it was Uriah’s child (and no one would be the wiser). Unfortunately, David’s plan didn’t work. Uriah was a man of honor, and if his men were at the front putting their lives on the line, he wasn’t going to enjoy the comforts of home. So, when David’s first plan didn’t work, he had Uriah put into a position at the front where he would surely be killed. Again, when you’re the king, you get your way. Uriah was sent into a situation where David could be sure he wouldn’t survive. Thus, David’s problem was solved. Only his inner circle knew of the situation. He could then move on with life. Since Uriah was out of the situation, David felt safe to bring Bathsheba into his household, which included several other wives, including Michel, the daughter of Saul, and Abigail, the former wife of Nabal—who had insulted David and was struck down by God, allowing David to take her into his household (1 Samuel 25).

As so often happens in life, bad decisions catch up with us. When no one else was willing to challenge David, who was known to be a man with a heart for God, God, who was displeased, broke the silence by sending Nathan the prophet to confront David. Nathan doesn’t challenge David directly. He uses a parable to get David to frame himself. The parable, which has become famous over time, speaks of a man who was raising a beloved lamb, treating the lamb as if it was his own daughter. Pet owners can understand. Then one day, a traveler stopped by to see this rich man—a neighbor of the owner of this beloved lamb. As a good host, he needed to provide the traveler with a meal, but the rich man didn’t want to slaughter one of his own animals to serve the traveler. Why should he when his much poorer neighbor had a lamb he could take and slaughter. If it is good to be a king, apparently, it’s good to be a rich man as well. This is what the rich man did. He took this beloved lamb and slaughtered it and had it served to the traveler. He had done his job of being a good host, and it didn’t cost him any of his own animals. Note here the power/wealth differential.

When Nathan finished his story, David got indignant. How could the rich man do such a thing? If he had a great flock of animals to choose from, why take from the man with only one lamb? David immediately pronounced judgment. Off with his head!! How could he do such a thing? Then comes the famous punch line. Nathan turns to David and pronounces judgment: “Thou art the man.” Yes, in taking Bathsheba, the wife of one of his officers, bedded her (likely raping her), and then covering up the act by having her husband—who faithfully served him as an officer in his army—put in harm’s way, David was like the rich man in the parable. If the man in the parable deserved death, then surely David deserved the same.

David’s deed was revealed. He deserved the punishment he believed the rich man in the parable deserved. David’s response is clear and direct: “I have sinned!” In other words, you caught me. He would be spared the death sentence, but his family, including the infant child, would suffer as a consequence. Psalm 51 is often paired with this story, suggesting that it is David’s confession of sin and desire to receive God’s forgiveness:

¹⁰Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and put a new and right spirit within me.
¹¹Do not cast me away from your presence,
and do not take your holy spirit from me.
¹²Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
and sustain in me a willing spirit. (Psalm 51:10-12)

The story is one of discovery, of repentance, and conditional forgiveness. It’s conditional in the sense that there are still consequences to be paid. David’s family life would get more complicated. A son would rape his half-sister, leading to the sister’s brother taking revenge, and then that same brother revolting against David, and suffering an inglorious death. We celebrate David as a man of God, and yet he was a complicated figure. The man who would be credited with writing many of the Psalms and the model for the later messiah, even Jesus himself, was a sinner, and a sinner who broke several important commands.

As I read this, and considered David’s actions, I thought of the Ten Commandments. When you read this story as a whole it becomes clear that David was truly a lawbreaker (and thus a sinner). The first commandment broken by David was the last of the ten, the one that spoke of coveting the neighbor’s wife. We may find this commandment to be disagreeable, for it treats women as something to be owned. Thus, we might want to read this in a different way. David coveted someone who was in a committed relationship to another. Having broken the law against coveting, David began to break other laws. The next in line was adultery, in taking Bathsheba and perhaps raping her, he entered an adulterous relationship. Finally, to cover up the previous sin, he conspired to commit murder. David can’t plead innocence because he didn’t pull the trigger. He set the who thing up, and so he is ultimately responsible. David was a sinner and a lawbreaker. Ironically, perhaps, there are Christians justifying the behavior of a certain President by pointing to David’s own behavior. I’m not sure that works well.

So, it may be good to be the king, but that doesn’t make one honorable or just because one is king or queen or any other position of authority. Power can and does corrupt when it is absolute. The best way to prevent misuse is to distribute it, but not only distribute it (as in the three branches of government in the United States), but to empower the poor. It also requires empowering those traditionally standing outside of power, especially women. As Grace Kim notes, “in a patriarchal society men have more power than women, who are sometimes viewed as little more than sexual objects.” To illustrate this point, she points out that women are often casualties of war, when they are sexually molested or raped. As a Korean, she knows the stories well of the Korean women who, during World War II, were forced to serve as “comfort women” to service Japanese soldiers. She writes that “sexual sins against women continue worldwide, and congregations and denominations need to bring these issues to public awareness so that they can be addressed” [Preaching God’s Transforming Justice, p. 344]. Such is the story of David, the one who coveted his neighbor’s wife, committed adultery by raping her, and then murdering her husband to cover up his deed. This could occur because he possessed unquestioned power. Only the intervention of God, speaking through Nathan the Prophet, could overturn this misuse of power.

Triqueti, Henri Joseph François, baron de, 1804-1874. Thou shalt not commit adultery (Nathan confronts David), from Art in the Christian Tradition, a project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, Nashville, TN. http://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=55139[retrieved July 28, 2018]. Original source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nathan_and_David.jpg.

Dancing before the Lord – A Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 8B (2 Samuel 6)

2 Samuel 6:1-5, 12b-19 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

6 David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. 2 David and all the people with him set out and went from Baale-judah, to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the Lord of hosts who is enthroned on the cherubim. 3 They carried the ark of God on a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, were driving the new cart 4 with the ark of God; and Ahio went in front of the ark. 5 David and all the house of Israel were dancing before the Lord with all their might, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals.

12b So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing; 13 and when those who bore the ark of the Lord had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. 14 David danced before the Lord with all his might; David was girded with a linen ephod. 15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.

16 As the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal daughter of Saul looked out of the window, and saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart.

17 They brought in the ark of the Lord, and set it in its place, inside the tent that David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt offerings and offerings of well-being before the Lord. 18 When David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the offerings of well-being, he blessed the people in the name of the Lord of hosts, 19 and distributed food among all the people, the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women, to each a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins. Then all the people went back to their homes.

********************

If you’ve seen Raiders of the Lost Ark, you know that you must handle it with great care. Terrible things happen when you don’t show proper reverence, or you handle it with malevolent purposes (as in Raiders). It’s possible that Stephen Spielberg was inspired by reading from this passage of 2 Samuel 6. The “scary” part of the passage, of course, has been excised by the lectionary creators. It’s not very worshipful to hear how God got peeved with Uzzah, when Uzzah reached out to try and steady the ark. He meant well, but God didn’t take kindly to the help, and struck him dead. Apparently, David got a bit skittish about bringing the Ark any further. While he wanted to bring the Ark, which represented the presence of God, into the city, cementing his role as king over the entirety of Israel, he decided to leave the Ark at the home of Obed-Edom. There it sat until David got enough courage to bring it the rest of the way to Jerusalem, so he could set it up in its new home—the Tabernacle. It’s always good to remember that Solomon, not David, gets to build the Temple, so during David’s reign it sat in a tent.

The reading from 2 Samuel is divided into two sections. Section one is the initial attempt to retrieve the Ark, so it can be set in the city. The Ark had been lost during a battle with the Philistines during the reign of Saul. Apparently, the Philistines decided that the Ark caused more trouble than it was worth, so they let Israel have it back. Now, it could be placed in an appropriate place in David’s capital. At least that’s what David hoped would happen, when he went out with 30,000 soldiers to retrieve and transport the Ark to Jerusalem. Unfortunately, as noted above, the first attempt went badly—cue Raiders.

The second section tells the story of David’s decision to go and retrieve the Ark from the home of Obed-Edom. After all, during this intervening period when the Ark rested at there, Obed-Edom and his family were being blessed (that part is excised as well). When David hears this news, he decides he needed he bring the Ark in the city, so he could be blessed. This time David took more precautions so that nothing could go wrong during the transport of the Ark. There would be no ox-cart this time. Instead it would be carried to the city. The procession would include sacrifices, dancing, trumpets, and shouts of praise. David not only accompanied the Ark, it appears he the dances as the train of people made their way to the city. And all went well. David and the Ark arrived in the city. They safely placed the Ark in its new home—a tent that David erected. Everyone went home. Now blessings could flow David’s way.

Everyone in the city seemed to be excited. Restoring national treasures is something to celebrate. David was happy. He had his Ark. Perhaps God was happy. But when he returned home, he discovered that not everyone was happy with the recent events. David was met at the door by his wife Michal, who was the daughter of Saul. She was scandalized by David’s dancing, believing he had revealed to much of himself before his “servant’s maids.” The thought is that the linen ephod, which was similar to what the priests wore, that David was wearing left very little to the imagination. Again, the lectionary selection ends before we get the full story. and that he may have exposed himself to the populace. That embarrassed his wife, who was also daughter of Saul. Once they were in love, but time had passed. David had added to has harem. Michal was put off to the side. She gets a bad rap. After all, David was simply dancing before the Lord. But maybe we’ve been too harsh. Maybe Michal has a right to be concerned. The story goes on beyond what is set for this Sunday’s reading. Perhaps Michal needs our support. After all, her family is gone. She has been largely abandoned by her husband, whom she loved, but perhaps with an unrequited love. We usually give David a pass on his behavior. Yes, he could be a bit boorish, but he was close to God. Unfortunately, too many of those close to him, including Michal, suffered.

The reason this passage is chosen for inclusion in the lectionary is that it celebrates God’s presence among the people. The Ark symbolizes this presence, which brings blessing to homes and cities. David had reason to be exuberant in his joy, but perhaps he didn’t consider the feelings of everyone involved. To David, the Ark had been placed in its appropriate spot. It gave him legitimacy and the city legitimacy. It was a sign of unification of a loosely connected community. David had religious motives, but political ones as well. As we ponder the text it might be worth considering which of these two motives held the greatest sway in his life. Granted in the ancient world church and state were more thoroughly integrated than today, but still, was David more influenced by his relationship with God or by his search for power. That question then gets posed to us. Are we Christians first or Americans first?

As we ponder this passage, we might think about the symbols that speak to us. Which symbols do we consider sacred? The Communion Table and its elements are possible signs of God’s presence in Jesus. The cross can be a sign. The question is, when push comes to shove do we put greater emphasis on these sacred signs or on alternative signs like the American flag?

One further note, it might be worth noting that while the creators of the lectionary have omitted the section detailing how Uzzah gets zapped by God, we would be wise to make clear that such a vision of God is not healthy. If, as at least some of us Christians proclaim, God is love, then surely this act is not representative of God. That is not to say that we need to so soften God’s image that anger and wrath are no longer part of God’s personality is wise, it’s just that we need to be careful in how we depict God, because such depictions can influence our own actions.

Passages like this seem so distant from our lives. Yet, they are expressions of human experience. David was happy. His people were happy. They celebrated the presence of God. The question as always comes down to motive. We might rather explore a passage from the Gospels, but let us not forget that even passages like this can speak. It might even serve as an invitation to dance before the Lord (with all due modesty taken into consideration).

Robert Cornwall is the Pastor of Central Woodward Christian Church in Troy, Michigan. He holds the Ph.D. in Historical Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is the author of a number of books including Out of the Office (Energion, 2017), Marriage in Interesting Times (Energion, 2016), and Freedom in Covenant (Wipf and Stock, 2015) and blogs at Ponderings on a Faith Journey.

Picture attribution: Salviati, Francesco, 1510-1563. David with Ark of the Covenant, from Art in the Christian Tradition, a project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, Nashville, TN. http://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=47899 [retrieved July 9, 2018]. Original source: http://www.yorckproject.de.

Shepherd of Israel – Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 7B (2 Samuel 5)

2 Samuel 5:1-10 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

5 Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron, and said, “Look, we are your bone and flesh. ²For some time, while Saul was king over us, it was you who led out Israel and brought it in. The Lord said to you: It is you who shall be shepherd of my people Israel, you who shall be ruler over Israel.” ³So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron; and King David made a covenant with them at Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel. ⁴David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. ⁵At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years.

⁶The king and his men marched to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, “You will not come in here, even the blind and the lame will turn you back”—thinking, “David cannot come in here.” ⁷Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, which is now the city of David. ⁸David had said on that day, “Whoever would strike down the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack the lame and the blind, those whom David hates.” Therefore it is said, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.” ⁹David occupied the stronghold, and named it the city of David. David built the city all around from the Millo inward. ¹⁰And David became greater and greater, for the Lord, the God of hosts, was with him.

******************

The story we read in 2 Samuel tells of the reign of David, Israel’s second and perhaps greatest king. A millennium later, when Jesus entered the city of Jerusalem, he was hailed the son of David, the assumption being that he would restore the glories of David’s kingdom. The question for any preacher who approaches a passage like this, is how will it preach? What message besides the historical (of course using that term for an ancient text carries its own baggage) does the passage offer?

To get to the contemporary question, we must address the original story, the one we find present in 2 Samuel. When last we met David in 2 Samuel 1, he was at Ziklag. Having received news of the death of Saul and Jonathan, he composed a song of lament. The stage was set for him to become Saul’s successor, but remember this is a federation of tribes. David may have a power base but is he ready to take over the whole nation? In chapter 2, David is made king of Judah, his own tribe. He sets up his capital at Hebron, but he only reigns over part of the tribal federation. It is only here in chapter 5 that David can consolidate his power. There at Hebron, where he had reigned for seven years as king of Judah, the representatives of the rest of the tribes of Israel come to David and ask that he be their king as well, reminding him that they are ultimately the same family. He agrees, and they crown him as the king of the entire nation of Israel. Now he is king of Judah and Israel. If we remember that this was written after the fall of the two kingdoms, which for most of their existence were separated into two kingdoms, this makes sense to speak this way.

David might be king of all the tribes, but his capital was linked to Judah. Maybe he should think about getting a different capital, one that isn’t connected with any of the tribes. Why not the citadel of Zion, which belonged to the Jebusites? While I have included the complete text running from verse 1-10, the creators of the lectionary omit verses 6-8, which describe David’s capture of Jerusalem from the Jebusites. It would be nice to think that David moved from Hebron, his original capital, into an unoccupied stronghold. But such is not the case. Warfare in the ancient world often led to the slaughter of the defeated, so imagine David doing just that. Yes, David was a king with blood on his hands. We prefer, most likely, to think of him in terms of the shepherd boy but remember that he felled Goliath and many others. You might think of David as a warlord who happened to rise to the top of the heap. I know that doesn’t make David sound like a man after God’s heart, but maybe a warrior could be a man after God’s heart. When the people in Jerusalem in the first century CE hailed Jesus as the son of David, they were hoping for a warrior. He might be the prince of peace, but peace comes through strength, or so we’ve been told.

One of the things that confounds modern readers of the bible is the violence that is present found in its pages. The lectionary creators do their best to avoid much of the blood and guts of the Bible, but maybe we should face the facts that these texts emerged out of a violent world. Then again, we live in a violent world. Why would we expect the ancient world to be any different? As we read Scripture we find passages that reflect the human aggression, sometimes attributing such attitudes to God. For a nation that was at the crossroads where empires often clashed, is it any surprise that the people of Israel would ask God to bless their attempts to defend their territory and to carve out a bit of space to make a home? At the same time, we find passages that express hope that peace will one day reign. Thus, God is both peacemaker and warrior.

David was a warrior king. He had made a name for himself on the battlefield, and this is what the people of Israel desired. They wanted a king who would fight their battles. Saul had been the first choice, but he didn’t bring the peace that was hoped for and he died in battle. Now, Israel would turn to David, hoping that by uniting with Judah they could find that desired space of peace and prosperity. The word we hear in 2 Samuel is this: “And David became greater and greater, for the Lord, God of hosts, was with him.”

If Jesus is the Son of David, in what way is this true? Some Christian interpreters are embarrassed by the depiction of Yahweh as a warrior and have followed Marcion by distancing Jesus from that God. Unfortunately for modern Marcionites, Jesus’ Bible was the Old Testament. What I’m reminded of here is that the Bible, both testaments, shouldn’t be read flatly. As we approach this story, we can acknowledge David’s gifts and calling, and that God was with him as the people of Israel found their bearings, without embracing the entirety of the story. With Jesus we can center our attention on those passages that speak of peace and justice. It is also important to remember that while Jesus may have redefined what it means to be the son of David, he doesn’t reject the title.

Perhaps the word we should take from this reading is that David’s greatness comes because God is with him. It as God’s anointed that he is Israel’s shepherd. It is not due to any special qualities on his part, except that David tried to follow God’s paths. Of course, David didn’t perfectly follow them. If we follow David’s story we discover his many imperfections. Then again, David is, like us, a human being. At the same time, God was with him. God is with us as well.

How the Mighty have Fallen – Reflection for Pentecost 6B (2 Samuel 1)

2 Samuel 1:1, 17-27 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

1 After the death of Saul, when David had returned from defeating the Amalekites, David remained two days in Ziklag.

17 David intoned this lamentation over Saul and his son Jonathan. 18 (He ordered that The Song of the Bow be taught to the people of Judah; it is written in the Book of Jashar.) He said:

19 Your glory, O Israel, lies slain upon your high places!
    How the mighty have fallen!
20 Tell it not in Gath,
    proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon;
or the daughters of the Philistines will rejoice,
    the daughters of the uncircumcised will exult.
21 You mountains of Gilboa,
    let there be no dew or rain upon you,
    nor bounteous fields!
For there the shield of the mighty was defiled,
    the shield of Saul, anointed with oil no more.
22 From the blood of the slain,
    from the fat of the mighty,
the bow of Jonathan did not turn back,
    nor the sword of Saul return empty.
23 Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
    In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
    they were stronger than lions.
24 O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul,
    who clothed you with crimson, in luxury,
    who put ornaments of gold on your apparel.
25 How the mighty have fallen
    in the midst of the battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
26     I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
greatly beloved were you to me;
    your love to me was wonderful,
    passing the love of women.
27 How the mighty have fallen,
    and the weapons of war perished!

*********************

“How the mighty have fallen.” That is the refrain in David’s lament at the death of King Saul and his son Jonathan in battle. Israel had demanded a king to fight its battles. God heard their request and directed Samuel to provide a king. The one Samuel selected at God’s direction was Saul. Saul proved to be a good warrior, but a less than competent king. God tired of him and directed Samuel to anoint another king in his place. Samuel found David among the sons of Jesse, though David was the youngest of Jesse’s sons, and anointed him king. This anointing came even though David was a mere shepherd. Although Samuel anointed David, David made no claim on the throne as long as Saul lived. David initially remained at home, continuing his previous work. His brothers would go off and join Saul’s army, but David was too young. Finally, as the story goes, David appears at Saul’s camp, at the very moment that the Philistine champion Goliath was challenging Israel to one-on-one, winner-take-all battle. When no one stepped forward to take on the challenger, David volunteered, bringing down Goliath with a stone fired from a sling. David would go on to join Saul’s army, become a leader of that army, marry Saul’s daughter Michel, befriend Saul’s son, and at some point, become estranged from an increasingly despondent Saul. Remember that Saul had lost the Spirit, if not his throne, when David was anointed by Samuel. 1 Samuel ends with Saul’s death, along with three of his sons, including Jonathan, David’s closest friend. David wasn’t with Saul at the time, for he was in exile. While he wouldn’t fight against Israel, he did fight battles for the Philistines against other enemies, until the Philistines tired of him. At the time of Saul’s death, David was fighting the Amalekites, who had sacked Ziklag, where David had set up residence. It was while he was at Ziklag that David heard the news of Saul’s death.

2 Samuel is the story of David’s reign, from the time of Saul’s death to his own. It begins with David returning from his victories over the Amalekites. Despite being estranged from Saul, and despite knowing he had long before been anointed Israel’s king, David too the news of Saul’s death hard. It is said that “David rent his clothes and wept for Saul and for Jonathan. Much of the story of David hearing the news is omitted from the lectionary reading. It picks up in verse 17 with the narrator’s note that David cried out in lamentation, his song being called “The Song of the Bow.” It was a song all in Judah were to be taught.

The song begins: “Your glory, O Israel, lies slain upon your high places!” What is the glory spoken of her? It is, Saul, the king, the one who was understood to be anointed by God and thus reflecting the glory of God. Then comes that refrain: “How the might have fallen!” David laments that this story will be told in foreign lands, as the Philistines gloat their victory. David wants Saul and Jonathan not to be remembered in defeat, but in their victories. The people need to remember that “the bow of Jonathan did not turn back, nor the sword of Saul return empty.”

Saul and David were estranged in life, which put a great strain on David’s relationship with his beloved friend Jonathan. Yet, David remembers them both fondly. Here the words he uses to describe both men, one who ended up seeking to kill him, declaring them to be “beloved and lovely!” The mighty have fallen, but they should not be remembered as being defeated. Yes, David is distressed at the death of his beloved friend.

There is a passage here that speaks of deep friendship. Questions have been raised as to the depth of that friendship. David sings out concerning Jonathan: “greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” The question raised concerns whether this is a reference to a homoerotic relationship. The truth is, no one knows. The wording is intriguing, but it proves nothing. Our interest in that phrase may say more about our hyper-sexualized world than about the relationship of Jonathan and David. Could it not be that they forged a friendship so deep that, without it become sexualized, was more intimate than any other form of friendship. Concerning Jonathan, Pablo Jiménez, writes that he was a “man of integrity, trapped between his loyalty to his father and his loyalty to his friend. Ultimately, he sacrifices his life fighting a losing battle at his father’s side. Jonathan thus evokes another young man who loved his friends to the point of sacrifice, hanging on a cross” [Preaching Transforming Justice, p. 307]. If we focus on Jonathan, we see a celebration of a life lived for others. He was loyal to his father to the end, and the same was true of his loyalty and friendship with David. He was caught in the middle, but he did not forsake either man. Thus, David seems to celebrate this dimension of his friend’s life.

There is a second consideration as we ponder this song and its implications for our lives. The song emerges out of war. Saul, Jonathan, and David are all warriors. Whether in victory or defeat they are hailed as heroes. At one level the song reminds us of the costs of war, but it can also glorify war. Looking back to the death of Saul and Jonathan, this was a great loss for the people of Israel. Death has consequences. It’s messy. Lives are lost. Even though the United States has been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq for nearly twenty years, it’s easy to forget the cost. This isn’t like World War II, when everyone felt the burden of war. This isn’t even like Vietnam, where most families at least faced the possibility of sons being drafted (women were not yet subject to the draft). These most recent wars are being fought be an all-volunteer army, and so an increasingly smaller number of families feel the consequences. We don’t feel the pain in the same way as before.

At the same time the song could be seen as glorifying war. This leads to a question that churches struggle with: how do we honor those who have died in war without romanticizing war? I know that those who served in Vietnam returned home to a deeply divided nation that had long since come to detest the war, and the returning Vets were often seen as symbols of that war. As symbols, they were often treated with disrespect. Could the same happen today with the latest returnees? What’s interesting is that in the United States soldiers and veterans are about the only group still respected.

This song invites all manner of questions, among them is the question of our own human fragmentation. At a time in my nation’s history when we are being driven further and further apart, where there seems to be no center, no place of respect for the other, might David’s relationship with Saul offer us a different perspective. Saul, who by the end was suffering mental anguish had become David’s enemy, but David chose not to directly oppose Saul. He refused to fight against him. He tried to remain close to Jonathan. It was difficult, and yet David persisted. How might we persist in the pursuit of what is right and just without creating unnecessary barriers? Remember that even though Saul had become David’s enemy, David grieved his death. There is compassion here that we might take note of in our own day, even as we become numb to the lives of those with whom we disagree.

It is worth considering how this passage might speak to those living in the United States on the Sunday prior to Independence Day. How might this song speak to this national celebration? Yes, and “how have the mighty fallen?”

	Dennis on Is Christian Nationalism Reall…
	Barbara Foster on Is Christian Nationalism Reall…
	Thad Crouch on Woe Is Me: Elijah’s Lame…
	Jessica Powell on It’s Hard to Be Humble!,…
	thetruthnotdoctrine on A Christian Way of Living…

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: